Posted on 02/18/2015 4:30:04 PM PST by Kaslin
As the White House kicks off day-two of a summit on combating generic violent extremism, President Obama has published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times titled, "Our fight against violent extremism." While the administration has overtly refused to specifically name "Islamic" terror, the piece finally acknowledges (albeit inadvertently) the regular existence of violence inside Islam. Still, Islamic extremism isn't specifically named and won't be during the three-day conference at the White House this week.
The United States has made significant gains against terrorism. We've decimated the core al Qaeda leadership, strengthened homeland security and worked to prevent another large-scale attack like 9/11.
At the same time, the threat has evolved. The al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen actively plots against us. Since 9/11, terrorists have murdered U.S. citizens overseas, including in the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Here in the United States, Americans have been killed at Ft. Hood and during the Boston Marathon.
Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL promote a twisted interpretation of religion that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims. The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam. We can echo the testimonies of former extremists who know how terrorists betray Islam. We can help Muslim entrepreneurs and youths work with the private sector to develop social media tools to counter extremist narratives on the Internet.
Claiming "core Al-Qaeda has been decimated" is extremely misleading. While former leaders like Osama bin Laden are dead, Al Qaeda has not been decimated. In fact, it's grown or "evolved" as Obama argues and recent attacks in western cities like Paris and Copenhagen display their comeback.
But the President touting a victory about core Al Qaeda isn't the most bizarre part of the piece. Further down, Obama claims those engaging in violent extremism have "legitimate grievances" that must be addressed.
Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.
What, exactly, does Obama mean when he says "legitimate grievances"? The grievances Al Qaeda and ISIS hold are against infidels and Muslims who don't go far enough to wage jihad on the West. These "grievances" aren't economic, despite what the State Department would like us to believe.
And finally, despite admitting he isn't aware of all the facts, President Obama implies that the three Muslim students shot dead in Chapel Hill last week were killed as a result of their faith. The killer was an atheist who was enraged over a parking dispute.
We do not yet know why three young people, who were Muslim Americans, were brutally killed in Chapel Hill, N.C. But we know that many Muslim Americans across our country are worried and afraid.
The summit on generic violent extremism kicked off yesterday and will continue throughout the week at the White House.
This post has been updated with an additional block quote.
>(He Does Not Get It)<
.
No, WE don’t get it.
The country should ask itself whose side Obama is on.
He also seems to be legitimizing violence for “legitimate Greivances”.
See Luis Gutierrez and his statement that illegals will become increasingly militant if they don’t get their way.
Obama has gone full enemy to the USA. Sadly, the GOPe doesn’t care.
The words and writings of our founding fathers offer us wisdom and insight that stretches across the ages. The ideas about freedom and liberty that they wrote about and fought for are still serving America today. The system of government that they envisioned and set up for us continues to persevere, has brought great prosperity to the people residing in the United States. Through the centuries, millions of brave troops have risked their lives, fought and died to defend the ideas and principles that our founding fathers gave to us.
This President’s Day we would serve ourselves well to think about what kind of wisdom our founding fathers might have to help us through these troubling times.
Our current President has asked Congress for authorization to use military force to fight ISIS, a dangerous group of Islamic radicals killing innocent people and occupying large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Yet despite asking for authorization to fight ISIS, a group which calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Obama refuses to refer to our enemy as Islamic. He ignores the fact that Islam plays any part in our enemies’ actions or their motivations, insisting that they are but common criminals, not terrorists motivated by a perverse interpretation of their religion. How can we hope to succeed if our Commander-In-Chief doesn’t even admit who it is we are fighting?
How would our founding fathers have viewed President Obama’s refusal to face facts? It may surprise some readers who think of Islamic terrorism as a modern, post-Cold War phenomena, but in fact our founding fathers also had to deal with Islamic aggression even in the earliest days of our Republic.
The United States fought two wars against the Barbary Pirates and the Islamic states (provinces of the Ottoman Empire) who supported them.
The first and second Barbary wars took place immediately before and after the famous War of 1812. The first Barbary War (1801-1805) and Second Barbary War (1812-1815) are overshadowed by the larger conflict with England, but these small wars helped give rise to American naval power and showcased the new American Navy taking the fight to the enemy in North Africa, blockading the ports in Tripoli and forcing our enemies to heel.
Could these early conflicts be considered America’s first war against Islamic extremists? The Barbary pirates rationalized their terror raids the same way ISIS does today, as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson observed. While on a diplomatic mission to London, they negotiated with the Ambassador from Tripoli and shared the following widsom after the meeting.
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations that had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”
“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay,” March 28, 1786, “Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, U.S. Library of Congress
Clearly, our founding fathers knew that there is no negotiating with Islamic terrorists.
George Washington was also noted as one of the main proponents of war against the Barbary pirates as well as the Islamic states who supported them. But our founding fathers were not intolerant of Islam. Thomas Jefferson is said to have owned a personal copy of the Koran. Washington himself and Benjamin Franklin spoke highly of those Muslims who peacefully practiced their faith and respected their piety, but they were not afraid to go to war and fight those who waged war in the name of Islam. And they were not shy to call them Muslims as our current President does.
President Obama should take a cue from the wisdom of our founding fathers in the past. Calling our enemies what they are - Islamic extremists, does not make you a Muslim-Hater or an Islamophobe, it simply shows an understanding of who our enemy is and what they claim to represent. Of course the terrorists are wrong, of course we know not all Muslims want to kill Christians and Jews, but appeasing the extremists by trying to talk as nicely as possible about their professed faith doesn’t help, it only confuses and hurts our ability to defend ourselves and our allies from their attacks.
OK...How many more American citizens need to be beheaded to pony up our “Fair” share? I would then recommend offering up BO’s head as the first sacrifice to make everything good with the “religion of peace”.
#GimmeAJobOrICutOffYourHead
Yes.
The street thugs rise up, and the people caught in the middle beg their overlords to take control.
As an aside, Chavez (Vz) used street thugs to deal with political opponents. They could be beaten or killed and it just went down as street crime. Or they could surround a newspaper for days bottling everyone up inside, and he could pretend it wasn't him.
The voters didn’t get it. Not once, but twice. We’ve jumped the shark from Constitutional Republic to Idiocracy.
Bingo! Anyone who calls him stupid is giving him a pass. He knows precisely what he is doing and that is AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY.
Supporters of Raila Odinga(BARAK OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN), the leading presidential challenger, rallied in Kibera, a slum near Nairobi.(According to the NY Times, this is a "rally")
Mr. Odinga’s (BARAK OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN, WHO HE CAMPAIGNED IN KENYA FOR)followers tried to march from Kibera to Nairobi.
A supporter of the presidential challenger Raila Odinga (OBAMAS FIRST COUSIN, WHO HE CAMPAIGNED FOR IN KENYA IN 2006) in Kibera, a sprawling slum near the capital, Nairobi.
Odinga supporters riot in December 2007(ODINGA IS BARAK OBMAMS FIRST COUSIN, OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR HIM IN KENYA IN 2006)
And now Ft. Hood is terrorism? The Obama Admin nimrods have been calling it workplace violence to this point.
Hell. I have Legitimate Grievances, almost everybody does, but we don’t slaughter our fellow humans because of them...
It’s crystal clear which side he’s working for. He is super-attentive to every imagined grievance of every islamonazi terrorist gang of murderers on Rock Three. And he doesn’t give a damn about anything Americans think or say or want or need or care about.
“He also seems to be legitimizing violence for ‘legitimate Greivances’.”
Actually, he is merely telling us he believes in the Declaration of Independence.
So if people in this country have legitimate grievances about the way the Constitution is being violated, if it was, and our elected representatives won’t do anything about it, he’s saying that it’s OK for people to resort to armed resistance. He’s a real Patrick Henry kind of guy, isn’t he?
Well done, Sir.......very well done.
BTT
Chamberlain thought Hitler had legitimate grievances too.
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.