Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Obama And The Term Islamic Terrorism

Recently I stumbled across the New York Post article entitled "Obama was as clueless about 9/11 as he is about ISIS" (February 28, 2015).

The essay points out that, in 2004, Obama added a new preface to his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father.

Excerpt from the above article (emphases mine):
That President Obama won’t call it Islamic terrorism; that he believes we shouldn’t be on a “high horse” because America and Christians have done bad things; that Muslims are victims of “bigotry and prejudice”; that his State Department says it’s the lack of jobs, not religion, that fuels ISIS, should come as no surprise.

After all, he said the same thing about 9/11.


In 2004, Obama released an update of his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, with a little-noticed new preface about the attacks.

“This collective history, this past, directly touches my own,” he added. “Not merely because, as a consequence of 9/11, my name is an irresistible target of mocking websites from overzealous Republican operatives. But also because the underlying struggle between worlds of plenty and worlds of want…is the struggle set forth, on a miniature scale, in this book,” which at its core is an indictment against Western imperialism, racism and colonialism.

Obama goes on to say he identifies with the “desperation and disorder of the powerless,” and how they can “easily slip into violence and despair.”


[...]

Had the media examined Obama’s ideology a little more closely in the 2008 election, perhaps we wouldn’t have a president who holds the US to equal scorn as its enemies.

“The Muslim world has suffered historical grievances,” Obama last month asserted while hosting his “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” He blamed the rash of global terrorism in part on “a history of colonialism” in the Mideast, Africa and South Asia....
Read the entire essay HERE.

I shall soon have in a hand a copy of the 2004 edition of Dreams from My Father. I want to see that preface with my own two eyes! 

Obama doesn't see Islamic terrorism as terrorism at all, but rather as postponed, long overdue justice? Is that it?

If that preface is as Mr. Sperry as described in his essay, then we have written evidence from which we may be able to discern on the basis of Obama's own words why he plays such word games with regard to Islam.

I managed to access a portion of the preface at Amazon, but not the entire preface. However, I did notice that Obama used the phrase "my brethren" in reference to the ummah in general.

ADDENDUM: This comment at Infidel Bloggers Alliance provides more of the aforementioned preface. Please take a look.

67 comments:

  1. It sickens me to my core that we elected this community agitator with no record and no experience. Barack Hussein Obama's election and reelection is an indictment of our ability to think rationally, and it is a testament to the willful stupidity of brain-dead, soulless people whose lives are so pitiful they must look to political heroes (the more un-white, un-male, un-American the better) to give them thrills up their legs and to give their pathetic, bug-like existence a slight ray of meaning.

    This is your nation on drugs, people! Big Pharma and Big Barry!

    I don't care about his skin color and I don't know what his religion is, but when the camera ain't on him, he talks and writes like a Marxist grad student. That is his mentality. It is who he is.

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”― Marcus Tullius Cicero

    ReplyDelete
  2. "lack of jobs"

    Well, if a society spends a greater portion of the day, face-down, and the remainder of the day killing those that they perceive to be antithetical to their fanatical doctrine, that leaves no time for "jobs". We seem to have a State Department that refuses to understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talk about clueless...

    So, you don't think colonialism had anything at all to do with any of this?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure it did, Jersey. Remember how America colonized all those Muslim countries?

      Do you realize that those sycophants who repeat the tendentious BS of their clueless heroes sound even more absurd?

      "Screams of My Father" was a flashing red light and loud caution siren to anyone with a brain. Obama's color is not the problem, and neither is his religion, whatever it may be (Obama's Reverend Wright G-d Damn America brand of Christianity is more problematic than if he had been a mainstream Muslim, imo). The problem is Obama's visceral Marxist hatred of the west and all it stands for.

      Also, Obama is either dangerously ignorant of history, or he purposely lies about it. Muslim extremism and violence predates colonialism.

      Latin Americans were oppressed by Spain and in some cases the US, but they have directed very little terrorism at us.

      Why aren't Christian Africans waging violent jihad against their former oppressors? If Obama's historical analyses are anywhere near valid, Chinese by the millions should be engaging in violent acts against Britain.

      I could go on, but I won't because it would just spill over your shallow brain pan.

      The problem is that ME Muslims are spoiled children who cannot face up to the pile of excrement their own culture and behaviors have created, so they scapegoat others. Obama is an enabler, handing the drunk another bottle and more money when what he really needs to do is get out of the way and let them hit bottom, where they will have no other option but to face the unpleasant facts.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't America a victim of "colonialism"? We rose above it. The rest of the world (Canada/Australia excepted) love waddle in their "oppressed crapulence".

      Delete
    3. I would love to know which middle eastern countries America colonized....go for it.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Well, z, Jersey stated colonization. Much of that was carried out by Europe and Standard oil.

      There was a little incident in Iran that we aided if I recall.

      Delete
    6. The bigger question is when have we ever been anti colonial.

      Delete
    7. Fowl! You mean countering "commie" interference in Iran's affairs would have prevent Soviet colonization? Who knew?

      Delete
    8. ...cuz the commie attempt on the Shah's life was defintely a "trigger" for the subsequent Anglo-America coup.

      In February 1949 there was an attempt on the life of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The party (Tudeh) was blamed.

      Delete
    9. You can tell which replies come from conservatives by the obvious lack of any understanding whatsoever of the history, context, and reality of the world around them.

      JM

      Delete
    10. ...and you can tell who the leftwing proglodytes are by the boilerplate propaganda they unthinkingly puke out on the rest of us.

      Delete
  4. If "colonialism" was some insurmountable factor, the United States would be a 3rd World Nation today; albeit that we have a President who seems to want to take us in that direction.

    "Talk about clueless..."

    You seem to be a leader in that category around here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to steal you point JonBerg!

      Delete
    2. @Speedy,

      "Sorry to steal you point JonBerg!"

      NO PROBLEM-Thanks for the reinforcement! My comment should have been placed in the "Reply" frame containing JMJ's inane rant.

      Delete
  5. In reality, what we call an adversary is irrelevant. It has zero impact on the actions we take against said enemy...and that, is what matters.

    That being said, there is no compelling reason NOT to call Islamic terror groups what they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not hung up on Obama and his JV team's refusal to call it 'Islamic.' I understand the diplomatic imperative to avoid needlessly offending people who are the world champions offense-takers.

      What is disturbing is Obama and his JV team going out of the way to criticize the west and Christianity and apologize for the violent behavior or Muslim extremists.

      Delete
    2. I agree with that, there's no value added in skirting around the fact that their religion fuels there actions. It's wasted effort and dumb optics.

      Delete
    3. ... who are the world champions offense-takers
      --------
      And this after Nuttyyahoo's(aka The Champ) latest grandstanding.

      Delete
    4. I think a good reading of Wretched of the Earth might give a better reading than your amateur interpretation of Islam.

      But it's really a matter of multiple world views creating a vacuum that allows thugs like ISIS to sprout.

      Delete
    5. Since the vast majority of ISIS jihadi's have degrees, they're hardly the lumpenproletariate. So perhaps a reading of Islam would be a bit more productive that "The Wretched of the Earth", duckman. As usual, you're quacking up the wrong tree.

      In a 2006 study, Swati Pandey and this author examined the educational background of 79 terrorists responsible for five of the worst anti-Western terrorist attacks of the modern era — the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, the Bali nightclub bombings in 2002, and the London bombings on July 7, 2005.

      We found that more than half of the terrorists had attended college, making them as well-educated as the average American. Two of our sample had doctoral degrees, and two others had begun working toward their doctorates.

      None of them had attended a madrassa.

      Significantly, we found that, of those who did attend college and/or graduate school, 58% attained scientific or technical degrees. Emwazi/Jihadi John reportedly studied computer programming, which makes him typical of the anti-Western jihadist terrorists we examined.

      Of course, large-scale insurgent groups such as ISIS and the Taliban recruit foot soldiers who join the cause to get a paycheck. But the people running these organizations are in it for ideological reasons.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, got it, Farmer. And the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab etc. are all disgruntled M.I.T. plasma physics Ph.D. candidates. Get down the street with this nonsense. Seventy nine? Stunning, any scientific data as to how this "scientific" sample was selected?

      The point remains and I believe Fanon's argument was strong that many peoples of the world have been so marginalized that they will resort to violence to transform their situation.

      Delete
    7. The point is, ISIS is the "vanguard" not the "lumpenproletariate". And the only way to fight THEM is with ideas, not "muscle".

      Delete
    8. from Wiki on the ISIS LEADER... American and Iraqi intelligence analysts in 2014 said Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies from a university in Baghdad.

      According to a biography that circulated on jihadist internet forums in July 2013, he obtained a BA, MA, and PhD in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad. Another report says that he earned a doctorate in education from the University of Baghdad.

      Delete
    9. ...and neither is a 7th century ideology.

      Delete
    10. So the IMAM has a bible college degree.
      Not very surprising, Farmer.

      Delete
    11. What's Obama's degree in, again? Poly-Sci and Law? The secular equivalent of an Islamic "Bible College" degree...

      Delete
    12. If little Hadji only had a felafel stand, he wouldn't be blowing things up and pushing gay men off of buildings...

      Delete
    13. Hey, Canardo in a skirt: I don't see Netanyahu blaming others for his problems

      Delete
  6. When I saw the story I blew it off as "it can't be"... but then again, who gave us the reveal about Obamacare? Rich Weinstein, a financial advisor gave us Gruber.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm with Bunkerville, I thought he couldn't have written that and nobody'd comment in the media (why oh why am I frequently surprised by the bias in our media???) I finally Googled it and couldn't find it, either. Of course, that could be a function of Google and what they want us to know.
    Eager to hear when you get your copy, AOW.

    The big question, too, is who'd publish the autobiography of a guy who'd done virtually nothing in his life and at such a young age, and such a big publisher...and two books about nothing but his feelings and background? Normally, an admittedly only mildly interesting background is only interesting if it illustrates a famous man's positions, etc "why he's like he is" but Obama'd done nothing to that point to warrant publication; that's always interested me. Indeed, he wasn't even senator yet for another 2 years. Who wangled publication?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z: A very astute point. How does an un-heroic, unaccomplished nobody get not one, but two books published?

      Also, who wrote Screams of My Father and The Audacity of Dope?

      Delete
    2. Z, That's been my first, second and last question on Obama and his books. A nobody out of nowhere, with no resume and no skills except ruthlessness. My library has its copy out or I'd check this when I pop over there shortly.

      Delete
    3. what's odd is I've not heard this anywhere in the media.....not ever, since 1995!!? They just buy it, hook, line and sinker because they're god wrote them (but many do believe Ayers wrote them both as he's published every year BUT the years those books came out....I can't say that for sure, but that was the rumor for a long time and, let's face it, it's a rumor our media'd never look into with the curiosity and malevolence they'd give a search if this was any Republican)

      Delete
    4. what's odd is I've not heard this anywhere in the media.....not ever, since 1995!!? They just buy it, hook, line and sinker because they're god wrote them (but many do believe Ayers wrote them both as he's published every year BUT the years those books came out....I can't say that for sure, but that was the rumor for a long time and, let's face it, it's a rumor our media'd never look into with the curiosity and malevolence they'd give a search if this was any Republican)

      Delete
  9. PS to SF - isn't Bill Ayres widely accepted as the author or primary author?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops! didn't see this comment till I alerted him the Ayers thing, which I believe SF is alluding to, anyway.
      Ayers, the guy who held Obama's first 'coffee' in his home when he considered running but whom Obama didn't know even though their wives worked together and he and Ayers were on a Board together....And this lie was known BEFORE the first election.
      LEfties don't care...the lie was one for their team, so that's fine, right? ugh

      Delete
    2. Only on The Blaze.

      This is absurd.

      Delete
    3. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/27/bill-ayers-admits-second-time-he-wrote-obamas-dreams-my-father

      Delete
    4. At first I thought he was teasing but it doesn't really look like it; article's compelling.
      It's been said for years that the style of Dreams was Ayers' style...
      who knows?
      But, it's not far fetched to believe this and Ayers looks fairly resolute on his statement.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/27/bill-ayers-admits-second-time-he-wrote-obamas-dreams-my-father

      Delete
    7. Oops! didn't see this comment till I alerted him the Ayers thing, which I believe SF is alluding to, anyway.
      Ayers, the guy who held Obama's first 'coffee' in his home when he considered running but whom Obama didn't know even though their wives worked together and he and Ayers were on a Board together....And this lie was known BEFORE the first election.
      LEfties don't care...the lie was one for their team, so that's fine, right? ugh

      Delete
    8. http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-ayers-claims-he-wrote-barack-obama-s-book

      Delete
    9. Wow, Newsbusters. Quite a source.

      Now according to the New Yorker (commie rag) Ayers said it jokingly when he was asked the question at a conference.
      I'll take the New Yorker as a more creditable source.

      Delete
    10. Oh,z, I was wrong.

      World News Daily also ran with it.
      Another site with a spotless track record. I think they broke
      the story on the FEMA camps.

      So let's recap: It's nonsense.

      Delete
    11. NEVER look at WND...it's the worst of the worst and I recommend you stop. Honestly, it's like MSNBC.
      Not sure what your problem is with The Examiner, but keep pitching.
      As you know, nothing sticks to this president and Ayers is a hero to the Left, so it's surely going to protect their little bond.
      Thanks.

      Delete
    12. http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-ayers-claims-he-wrote-barack-obama-s-book

      Delete
    13. I saw a video at one of the above links. Hard to discern exactly what was said, and I also can't discern if Ayers was "joking."

      I read this long ago: Jack Cashill on the topic of Dreams from My Father. One paragraph:

      None of this, of course, proves Ayers' authorship conclusively, but the evidence makes him a much more likely candidate than Obama to have written the best parts of Dreams.

      The essay by Cashill is worth reading, IMO.

      Delete
  10. I'm not a fan of colonial holdings - AT ALL. But, whether we like the idea or not, we have to be realistic and recognize facts. Most colonies got more by being a colony than they gave. For one, protection in ancient tribal rivalries (ask the muslim Nigerians in the north how THEY felt about having the British there. Hint: they begged them to stay when the Brits announced they were leaving. Not unlike the reason many American Indian tribes attached themselves to early American and Canadian settlers - for protection from the hated Iroquois.)

    The colonial got major markets for commerce and means to develop them which they would not have had left to their own devices. In contrast, with rare exception (India, South Africa, Rhodesia) the colonizer got red ink because the colony’s 'contribution' was such a tiny part of the mothership’s economy compared to the costs of securing and administering the place.

    So then we look at the people native to the colony. You have all sorts of material to work with. Cultures vary. People are different. The Brits looked down on India's citizens with the same hauteur as Africa's (remember how Gandhi was incensed at his exclusions as a 'black' which he in turn looked down on?). And they left the same screwy socialist notions blowing in the winds of the post-colonial era there as elsewhere. While India struggled (under those) they also responded to the advantages of the unifications of language and law the British brought and have forged an actual, functional and prospering country - other than with the Islamic harridans who split off their own country. And remember these people were twice colonized in the 'modern' age: once by Islam, and again by Britain. So you might think they have a longer boil more reason for resentments than others.

    So why do some former 'colonials' behave like terrorists and others like productive, good citizens? Makes one suspect colonialism is more the straw man than the initiating force. Until people stop repeating this canard, and particularly the president owns up to reality, this issue will get worse. They’ve got the cause wrong, so of course the ‘cure’ is doomed to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Grievances do not give a right to pillage, kill, rape and loot. My grandparents lived in a transient camp in the Dust Bowl and had only the clothes on their backs and a beat up old car. They did not take their "grievance" and use it as a tool for evil.

    Life is hard across the globe for most people. America, is anomalous to the life experience of the majority. We are blessed. Perhaps, that blessing flows from our Christian roots and moral compass.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that FDR's policies had anything to do with averting mass uprisings.

      Delete
    2. Ducky makes a good point. FDR did most likely prevent mass uprisings.

      All leaders must do that under one guise or another. FDR lifted us up in a very American way by appealing to people's American and Christian values. There was no scapegoating (interning Japanese Americans was a dark stain, but that was an aberration).

      ME Muslim leaders don't seem to be into lifting people up, putting policies in place for economic freedom, etc. They scapegoat. We all know that the UAE, Saudis and the other rich Gulf states could dump some money and expertise in to 'Palestine' and bring prosperity, but that doesn't fit the agenda. Palestinian authorities are still forcing people, whole generations later, to live in squalid refugee camps. It's sickening.

      The Shah of Iran was a reformer, women driving and teaching school, but the Democrat party and the Mullahs can't support that...

      Delete
    3. Perhaps FDR prevented mass uprisings but perhaps if he hadn't done what he had, uprisings would not have been necessary.
      There are so many economists who believe the depression was worsened by FDR's actions.
      And yes I KNOW THE LEFT WILL SCREECH FOR THAT ONE. They won't even let themselves peek into a thought they can't abide. So sad.

      Delete
    4. Z,
      Perhaps FDR prevented mass uprisings

      How does one prove a negative such as that?

      There are so many economists who believe the depression was worsened by FDR's actions.

      Regardless, FDR certainly fundamentally transformed America by creating the federal bureaucracy.

      Delete
    5. People were frustrated by the depression - especially those who understood how FDR was drawing it out, like his treasury secretary's testimony to congress. They were a lot more patient with that crap and less informed about the big picture of the skullduggery and capricious jerking of their lives around. Who knew FDR would wake up in the morning and say "I think milk should be 17 cents today"? Yes, he did! Or that a Jewish butcher in New York had to take him to the supreme court to allow a customer to pick which chicken he wanted? (Schechter case simplified). How many knew how desperately Roosevelt worked to transform the republic into the mess we have today? Especially after the bruhaha of his court packing scheme died down. And they put a shine on the virtual theft of private energy suppliers in the TVA.

      The inner gyroscope of the nation ran on a different center than today. It was not the selfish, entitlement mentality of waiting for government to gimme something. It was not the take it to the streets mentality, even though, yes, we had a number of public demonstrations. People were more dispersed and rural and had an attitude of self reliance wherever possible. This moored the social outlook to a law abiding posture that acted as a massive brace and counter balance to 'mass uprisings.'

      Delete
    6. Baysider,
      Thank you for that excellent comment! I hope that others here will read and absorb it.

      Delete
  12. obammy recently appointed a moslem chick Chief of US Citizenship and Immigration. he's a moslem vermin activist. I hope they tend to live next to the libtards, which they likely will since like any low intelligence moron, they gravitate to the large inner city.

    ReplyDelete
  13. She was appointed a special assistant not chief.

    Did you get that from Faux Snooze, The Blaze or "Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine" Limbaugh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The charge against the CinC is incompetency. I don't care if a Ferengi runs for the presidency if the aforementioned is competent. We have an intellectually deficient POTUS. Think of all of the excessive focus on things like a blighted, nobody gives a damn town like Ferguson, paranoid delusions against moderate centrists targeted as right wing fanatics by the IRS, and the list goes on.

    Our POTUS does not lead. He follows the lead of opinion polls - which are a poor gauge for domestic policy and a disaster for foreign policy.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
  15. FOR DISCUSSION:

    A friend mentioned something to me after reading portions of the 2004 preface to Dreams from my Father:

    "These words [my friend quoted them] sounds as if they were written by a Muslim."

    Agree or disagree with my friend's take?

    ReplyDelete
  16. This obaminable little screed should be reissued under the title NIGHTMARES from OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT.

    Joseph McCarthy, clumsy, crude and boorish though he may have been, was RIGHT.

    Unfortunately, the Jews in Hollywood and the Jews who ran the Enemedia, and the Jews who'd grabbed control of most of our universities were just too strong for him.

    McCarthy's message came TOO LATE. Our goose -- as a free and independent nation -- was already cooked. It was OVER long before any of us -- including poor Joe McCarthy -- had a clue.

    The Entertainment Industry, the News Media and the Indoctrinational Establishment (our Juniversities) dominated by Cultural Marxists (the Frankfurt School was100% Jewish in origin) had already steered The Good Ship AMERICA into an iceberg.

    The USA has been sinking into Oblivion since the election of FDR.

    For the past twenty years we have simply been guests at our own WAKE.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective