Obama And 9/11

The Anniversary: Eight days after terrorism declared war on America, a young state senator blamed it on "a failure of empathy" — yet another reason why Barack Obama should never be commander in chief.

The July 20 issue of the New Yorker magazine article reprised a piece published in Chicago's Hyde Park Herald on Sept. 19, 2001, and written by a then-unknown state senator from Illinois.

According to Barack Obama, the madness that drove terrorists to turn passenger jets into manned cruise missiles "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

We should also be just as concerned, he felt, with American anger and bigotry as we were about al-Qaida.

Abe Greenwald commented on Obama's belief that the 9/11 attacks were rooted in poverty and despair. "Strange," he called it, "considering our attackers were wealthy and educated, connected and ecstatic."

Obama "could have asked (terrorist and colleague) Bill Ayers, 'Bill, did your 'failure of empathy' stem from your impoverished upbringing as the son of the CEO of Commonwealth Edison?"

Fact is, the roster of terrorists and their handlers reads like a list of of Ivy Leaguers:

Bush aptly called the 9/11 terrorists and their ilk "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century."

Knowing the nature of your enemy is the key to victory. On the seventh anniversary of 9/11, we should all thank President Bush for keeping America safe. Along the way, he brought freedom and democracy to the Middle East, draining the terrorist swamp.

Bush gets it. So does John McCain. This is one thing we shouldn't want to change.

Great article!

Here is what Obama said this past Monday in Detroit:

” At high decibels, he pressed his point Monday that people could pay a heavy price if they make the wrong decision Nov. 4. At stake are constitutional liberties that can mean the difference between freedom and unjustified imprisonment, he told the crowd in Farmington Hills, Mich.

“We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist; it might be Muhammad the cabdriver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack the guy running for president,” he said, referring to the Bush administration’s arrest and detention policies toward terrorism suspects.”

Let’s not forget what we are dealing with here in Obama.....WEAKNESS IN THE FACE OF TERROR!

Just days before the 7th anniversary of 911...Obama is more concerned with terrorist’s rights! (eye roll)

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10432456?source=most_emailed

9-11 should serve as a reminder that we do not need in the white house a man who when asked if evil exists, chooses to accuse America of it!

WARREN: OK, we’ve got one last time — I’ve got a bunch more, but let me ask you one about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?

OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God’s task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.

Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil’s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.

“We were not attacked on 9-11 because we were hated, or because of a “failure of empathy”, we were attacked on that day because of a profound lack of respect for how we would respond.”

That is one of the most powerfull assessments I ever heard. Fantastic!!!

It may have been buried in my deep mental thoughts but it’s at the top now.

People may hate someone, may think they are apathetic but if they feel that if they attack that person viciously and that person will not respond, then what’s to lose?

The last part of the equation they worked out before they attacked us on 9/11 was that we would not respond, end of story and ultimately the end to them.

They chose POORLY!!!

A question for Nobama supporters, “Will there be a teleprompter when the phone rings at 3AM?”

I think not.

Thank you.

Obama is an idiot. 9/11 and Islamic terrorist jihad had nothing to do with “the desperation and disorder of the powerless” nor “how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair”. It has nothing to do with poverty nor wealth nor a “lack of empathy”. It has everything to do with something HE claims to be an expert in—constitutional law—but it is not the American Constitution but the Islamic—Sharia law and the Quran.
Sayyid Iman al-Sharif, who now resides in an Egyptian prison, wrote the book on jihad for al-Qaeda laying out all the legal principles upon which they could wage their war with their own people and especially the West and Israel. Some people like famed author Lawrence Wright (The Looming Towers) think he has recanted his original position. In truth, although he has royally ticked off Zawihiri, he has not!
This article (very long and complicated!) explains what 9/11 and all further terrorist attacks including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is all about. This is from an article called: Jihadists and Jurisprudents:The “Revisions” Literature of Sayyid Imam and Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya By Daniel J. Lav http://www.asmeascholars.org/Conference/2008ConferencePapers/JihadistsandJurisprudentsTheRevisionsLitera/tabid/853/Default.aspx
Here are a few of what I think are key thoughts contained in this article:
“It may well be that for al-Qaeda itself political and ideological considerations trump issues in jurisprudence – that at least is the criticism directed at it by some of the figures studied in this paper – but even so, such a contention can only be understood against the backdrop of the writings on which al-Qaeda’s leaders and cadres were formed and in which they profess to believe. While mainstream Islamic scholars accuse the jihadists of having deviated from classical norms, the jihadists themselves certainly do not consider themselves to have done so. THE MODERN JIHAD GROUPS SEE THEMSELVES NOT ONLY AS NORMATIVE MUSLIMS, BUT AS LOYAL STANDARD-BEARERS OF THE CLASSICAL SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS. THERE IS IN FACT LARGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JIHADISTS AND CONSERVATIVE ISLAMIC SCHOLARS ON MANY MATTERS OF LAW, ESPECIALLY WHEN TREATING CASES IN THE ABSTRACT; THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM RESULT PRIMARILY FROM DIVERGENCE ON HOW TO CLASSIFY AND INTERPRET REALITY, AND IN CONSEQUENCE HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED TO IT.”…

“This is readily apparent in THE PIVOTAL ISSUE of rebellion against the ruler. The idea that jihadists have revived the politically activist approach in conscious opposition to the medieval quietist consensus is not correct stricto sensu.[iii] Jihadist jurisprudence is, or claims to be, as willing to tolerate profligate Muslim rulers as were mainstream classical jurisprudents; likewise, THEIR CONTENTION THAT IT IS A DUTY TO REBEL AGAINST AN APOSTATE RULER IS SO UNCONTROVERSIAL IN CLASSICAL JURISPRUDENCE AS TO BE TRIVIAL. Thus the signal issue that distinguishes a jihadist from a conservative Islamist is that of how to determine whether a ruler is MERELY PROFLIGATE OR OUTRIGHT APOSTATE. As we will see, this issue is a kind of window through which theses of a theological or ideological order are assimilated into the Islamic legal system.”…

“In another tract published in Sayyid Imam’s name, and which is almost certainly his, one who condemns terrorism or says terrorism is un-Islamic is an apostate, since he has denied the verse (8:60): “Prepare for them what you can of force and steeds of war with which to terrorize Allah’s enemy and yours.” The logic here is similar to that in the previous example: ALLAH, IN THE QURAN, COMMANDED TERRORISM, AND THUS TO DENY THAT TERRORISM IS PART OF ISLAM IS TO DENY ALLAH’S BOOK AND TO COMMIT APOSTASY.”…

“Thus, for Sayyid Imam, the necessary consequence of takfir of the ruler is takfir of the courts, parliament, political parties, the army, and even voters. The lives of huge numbers of people in Muslim countries – perhaps even the majority – are considered forfeit. Imam’s version of this domino effect is the most extreme, but ALL THE JIHADIST JURISPRUDENTS AGREE ON THE PRINCIPLE.”

Last year Sayyid Iman released a new book called the “Tarshid” which is the one that made Zawihiri howl.

“The changed reality to which the Tarshid is responding is simply the aftermath of 9/11. In the al-Hayat interview Sayyid Imam expressed his views on the attack and its consequences:
“[9/11] WAS A CATASTROPHE FOR THE MUSLIMS. [AL-QAEDA] IGNITED STRIFE THAT FOUND ITS WAY INTO EVERY HOME, and they were the cause of the imprisonment of thousands of Muslims in the prisons of various countries. They caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims - Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was destroyed, and al-Qaeda was destroyed. They were the direct cause of the American occupation of Afghanistan and other heavy losses which there is not enough time to mention here. THEY BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL OF THIS.” …

“Sayyid Imam has not retracted takfir (apostacy) of the rulers, and for him nothing has unraveled. The prohibition of jihad that is the heart of the Tarshid instead relies on what we called a “suspension mechanism,” but in principle the entire edifice of jihadist belief – which Imam himself did much to construct – remains in place. Thus if Sayyid Imam still considers “making ready” an obligation, the jihadists could arrive at a state of ability and the jihad would recommence.
To employ another analogy, we could compare jihadist doctrine to A TIME BOMB. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya defused the bomb and did away with the danger. SAYYID IMAM SEEMS TO HAVE JUST STOPPED THE TIMER…”

Right after 9/11, Barack took off his flag pin and stopped wearing it until this year when others brought up the issue.

When I hear people say they support neither candidate, I have to ask them, "Why would you not be on the side that wants to prevent someone as devious, deceiving, dastardly, and dangerous as Obama, from becoming the next leader of the Free World?"

Why would you NOT want to give Obama the boot when, eight days after the 9/11 attacks, Obama said that..

The 9-11 attacks were carried out because of a lack of empathy for others' suffering on the part of al-Qaida, whose terrorist ideology grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

Obama went on to imply that the 9/11 attacks were also due to U.S. policy, and that America's military should focus more on protecting innocent civilians of Middle-Eastern descent than on attacking Al Qaida and the Taliban

One week after the 9/11 attacks, Obama said that we should do something about our "bigotry" and "discrimination" directed against "neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent."

Obama has never talked about the worldwide spread of Islamic terrorism. Nothing was ever said about the "bigotry" and "discrimination" directed solely against the Jewish people.

In addition, when he said to groups of Arabs and Pakistanis, that he would "stand with them should the political winds turn in an ugly direction," he wasn't talking about Jews or Christians in the Middle East. He wasn't even talking about Arabs or Pakistanis. He was talking about the one thing that links these two disparate groups together, and that is their Muslim identity. It's not their nationality or their looks links together Arabs and Pakistanis. It's Islam.

This idea of his, that terrorism "grows out a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair," is the same rubbish that we've heard from all apologists of Islamic terrorists.

Obama talks about Al-Qaida as if they are the only Islamic terrorists in the entire world. Seven years ago, he talked about their "lack of empathy." Today, he's made them a convenient "strawman" for terrorism and bashing Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden. OBama, like the rest of his liberal scum, refuse to offer any praise to the administration for preventing any more terrorist attacks on our soil.

The 9/11 operatives came from highly educated, financially well-off, and fully versed in the fundamental Koranic vision of jihad as "Holy War against the infidels."

In other words, not that different from Barry Soetoro's background.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.