Latest Review of Obama's "Speach"

[SpeedRacer 1]

Al Quaeda leadership (bin Laden & Zawahri) said all that shit BEFORE Obama even gave the speech, so how could it be a review?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[riddler 0]

Quote

I thought that all the muslims would love us once Barack Hussein was elected! He promised!

I don't think he promised that Osama Bin Laden would love us That's the first person quoted in the article. I don't think he promised that Al-Qaeda would love us either. One of their leaders is the second person quoted.

In fact, if Obama had suggested that we make peace with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, do you really think he would have been elected?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[champu 1]

Quote

Their fear is that millions of ordinary Muslims around the world will consider what he had to say and maybe think differently about the future.

The suspense in terrible. I hope it lasts.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Their fear is that millions of ordinary Muslims around the world will consider what he had to say and maybe think differently about the future.

I'd say they don't have much to worry about unless he actually changes some policies, too. People will listen to words, but a failure to follow up with actions (or a follow up with actions opposite the words) will generally disillusion them.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Obama's "Speach"

Sigh. Some things are just a lost cause.

___________________________________________
They have been trying to kill infidels since the crusades , nothing new about bin laden's threats . Blue skies!

[dropoutdave 0]

Well, he did better than the last guy, at least noone threw a shoe at his head.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[billvon 3,008]

Who throws a shoe?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Who throws a shoe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL569ywhAB4

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

For anyone who’s curious as to what those sympathetic to radical Islam and the global Salifist movement are saying about the President's speech and doesn’t read Arabic or any of the other non-western lingua jihadi, there’s a decent summary at Jihadica, which is a “is a clearinghouse for materials related to militant, transnational Sunni Islamism” run by a mix of American and Norwegian folks with expertise. Some of the radical Islamists sites that they translate and comment on are quite serious and represent real voices of radical Islamists, whereas others are more akin to a Speakers Corner of radical Islamists. Some of my comments are interspersed below in [bracketed italics].

“Overall, there is quite a bit of chatter about the Obama tour, and four types of postings recur.

“First are the political messages which denounce the visit and present it as further evidence that Egyptian and Saudi governments and ulama have submitted to American dominance. ‘In honour of Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia’, one member reposted the classic book The evident proofs of the infidelity of the Saudi state (1990) by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. Other posts circulate the pictures of Saudi and American flags side by side. Yet others claimed Egyptians are suffering as a result of Obama visit, because the security barriers in Cairo ‘confined 18 million Egyptians to their homes’ and because the Sultan Hasan mosque had to be closed for security reasons. [somewhat cheekily, the latter two points strike me as an odd sort of global NIMBY-ism . There’s also reflections of underlying domestic politics. All politics _is_ local after all. - nerdgirl]

“The second type of posts are strategic assessments in which writers try to second-guess the real purpose and implications of the visit. These posts are neither numerous nor sophisticated, and so far none of the serious jihadi strategists have weighed in. [it should be noted that at least one of the main radical Islamist websites is currently down – nerdgirl] ‘Al-Munasir1’ warns that part of the purpose of Obama’s visit to Egypt is to make final preparations for an international campaign against Sudan.

“The third and most widespread type of post focuses on tactical issues such as the detailed program of Obama’s visit, the size and nature of his security attachment and the prospects of carrying out an assassination. One writer quoted the Saudi opposition abroad as saying observers and Saudi security officials fear for Obama’s life in Saudi Arabia. He argued that the recent shooting in Jubayl is indicative of a surge in pro-al-Qaida sentiment in the Kingdom. The fact that the perpetrators of the Jubayl shooting have not been caught further worried the authorities. Most responses to the post expressed hope that Obama be assassinated, but one commentator drily noted that Obama comes and goes as he wishes so long as the royal family is in power.[Perhaps another example of similarities, the radical Islamist internet blogs are focusing overwhelming on *tactics* (third type of posts) and much less on *strategy/strategic implications* (second type) – nerdgirl]

“The fourth type of posting consists of reproductions of articles from other, more mainstream Arab and Islamic media. These posts are interesting not so much for the debates they generate (usually very little), but because they tell us something about which voices the forum participants would at least consider listening to. [i.e., which legitimate news organizations and non-western but non-radical Islamist voices have the most effective strategic communications capabilities – nerdgirl] So we find
- Abd al-Bari Atwan ‘s article “Our advice to Obama”
- An article by Mahmud Abduh Ali at Islamonline entitled “An examination of Obama’s position on the big issues that concern the Muslim world”
- An article from al-Jazeera.net on the Muslim Brotherhood’s reaction to the Obama visit.
- An article from Middle East Online entitled “Egyptians: No Ahlan wa Sahlan for Obama”, which cites a poll showing three quarters of Egyptians were skeptical of Obama’s visit.”

Imo, these sorts of windows into the words of the jihadists and their sympathizers is something that should be more prominently discussed in a lot of places including the American press. The former (jihadists) is toward whom counter-terrorism strategies focus. The latter (sympathizers) is whom counterinsurgency strategies have to impact to be successful, as well as affected but non-radicalized populations, i.e., the ‘people who just want to live and raise their kids’ as described in this article (h/t to [champu].) I note that there does seem to be some real discussion and acknowledgement of the need to balance short-term tactical success of drones in Pakistan’s tribal belt versus longer-term strategic implications. Dumbing things down completely doesn’t serve national interests, imo. (And people aren't stupid.) In whatever way one wants to define or parse national interests, incomplete information does not lead to good strategy or policy or an informed electrorate.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[funjumper101 15]

Marc, I have asked before and I'll ask again - What countries have you visited? What states have you visited?

How long was your longest stay at a place more than 200 miles from your place of birth?

I have been to Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, and Singapore. I have driven cross country, one round trip, and one way when I moved to CA. I have visited, as in, spent more than three nights in, ME, NH, VT, NY, NJ, FL, WA, OR, MT, NV, CO, AZ, MI, WI, IL. I was in Taiwan for 13 days, and Singapore for a total of 11 days. I have made several trips to Canada and visitied NB, NS, PEI, and BC. All of my travels were as a civilian. The trips to the far east were busienss trips, with a few days to play. I moved from the east coast to California when I was 23. That was more than 20 years ago.

Where have you been? Military or civilian?

[TomAiello 26]

Can you explain how you think that's relevant to the discussion?

I know people from all over the political spectrum who've lived and worked in a variety of countries.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,008]

>Not sure it was only the Rachel Madeux show . . .

Did you mean "Rachel Maddow" there?

>but a digital banner across the bottom of the screen read "Barack Husein Obama."

Cool! All the conservatives should be happy - the media has finally started saying his name the way conservatives want! Looks like the endless pre-election corrections from conservatives - "oh - you mean Barack HUSSEIN Obama" - had their desired effet.

[champu 1]

Quote

... there’s a decent summary at Jihadica ...

Hadn't seen that one... definitely bookmarking it... er wait... rss feed, even better.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Not sure it was only the Rachel Madeux show . . .

Did you mean "Rachel Maddow" there?

>but a digital banner across the bottom of the screen read "Barack Husein Obama."

Cool! All the conservatives should be happy - the media has finally started saying his name the way conservatives want! Looks like the endless pre-election corrections from conservatives - "oh - you mean Barack HUSSEIN Obama" - had their desired effet.

Quote

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.

Especially when he says it himself in his speech, hmm? Of course, recognizing that wouldn't have let you get your little jab in.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,008]

>Especially when he says it himself in his speech, hmm?

Exactly! Like I said, conservatives everywhere should be happy.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Especially when he says it himself in his speech, hmm?

Exactly! Like I said, conservatives everywhere should be happy.

That's not a liberal/conservative issue.

It's very smart for him to do that in this speech. It draws commonalities with his target audience, and helps defuse their feelings of alienation.

I'm quite pleased to see him making efforts to get people to stop killing Americans in ways that don't involve spending massive amounts of my money on killing other people, re-building their nations in our image, or otherwise pushing them around. Talk is cheap, and as such ought to always be our first option.

Now if he could only back up his words with some policy changes...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Can you explain how you think that's relevant to the discussion?

I know people from all over the political spectrum who've lived and worked in a variety of countries.

It has been my experience that the less you have traveled, the more likely you are to hold extreme right wing views. The old saw about travel broadening ones experience. There are exceptions to this, of course.

If you don't get out much, watch Faux news, and read from sources like newsmax, you might end up with extreme right wing views.
A bit of travel and exposure to other cultures is an important part of a well rounded education. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It has been my experience that the less you have traveled, the more likely you are to hold extreme right wing views.

That hasn't been my experience at all.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It has been my experience that the less you have traveled, the more likely you are to hold extreme right wing views.

That hasn't been my experience at all.

Growing up on a farm maybe has something to do with it, maybe?

I guess it has been my experience that well traveled highly educated liberals cant tolerate differing viewpoints. They are more likely to hold extreme an liberal bias boardering on socialism. They believe big brother government holds the answers to all social ills and that those who earn money need to give it to the bums and dead beats who chose to live off the government teat.

(it does also seem to me that holding the kinds of views that links group of people together are bigots. At least by billvon definiton)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,008]

>well traveled highly educated liberals cant tolerate differing viewpoints.

People who travel a lot generally HAVE to tolerate differing viewpoints. Once you've spent some time living in a village in Africa it's harder to be narrow.

>They are more likely to hold extreme an liberal bias boardering
>on socialism.

Actually, they're likely to see socialist countries that work well and socialist countries that suck, and capitalist countries that work well and capitalist countries that suck. They may even learn that "socialism" isn't just a smear, a dirty word used when you want to slam someone.

>They believe big brother government holds the answers to all social ills
>and that those who earn money need to give it to the bums and dead beats
>who chose to live off the government teat.

They may have indeed seen societies like that. They may also have seen capitalism taken to such an extreme that kids are sometimes found dead in the streets - and no one really cares. They may, in other words, see the world beyond an Internet forum. (Goes for anyone who travels, not just liberals.)

[rushmc 23]

whoosh.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Can you explain how you think that's relevant to the discussion?

I know people from all over the political spectrum who've lived and worked in a variety of countries.

It has been my experience that the less you have traveled, the more likely you are to hold extreme right wing views. The old saw about travel broadening ones experience. There are exceptions to this, of course.

If you don't get out much, watch Faux news, and read from sources like newsmax, you might end up with extreme right wing views.
A bit of travel and exposure to other cultures is an important part of a well rounded education. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Yes because traveling makes people left wingers.

If you sit at home, watch MSNBC, read from sources like the new york times, you might end up with extreme left wing views.

EDIT: This certainly didn't take long.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can you explain how you think that's relevant to the discussion?

I know people from all over the political spectrum who've lived and worked in a variety of countries.

It has been my experience that the less you have traveled, the more likely you are to hold extreme right wing views. The old saw about travel broadening ones experience. There are exceptions to this, of course.

If you don't get out much, watch Faux news, and read from sources like newsmax, you might end up with extreme right wing views.
A bit of travel and exposure to other cultures is an important part of a well rounded education. Ignorance is NOT bliss.

Yes because traveling makes people left wingers.

If you sit at home, watch MSNBC, read from sources like the new york times, you might end up with extreme left wing views.

EDIT: This certainly didn't take long.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

It would be interesting to see how fast this type of swing has happened in the past. I say this because this swings seems to have come very quickly.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

People who travel a lot generally HAVE to tolerate differing viewpoints. Once you've spent some time living in a village in Africa it's harder to be narrow.

There is a huge difference between tolerating differing viewpoints and holding any particular set of views.

I know people on the very fringes of political thought who are very tolerant of other views, and people who are closer to the center who can't stand disagreement. I know people on both the left and right who are very tolerant of disagreement, and again, other people on both left and right who can't stand it.

Tolerance is not the sole domain of any viewpoint. It's a characteristic that can be found (or not) anywhere in the spectrum.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,008]

>There is a huge difference between tolerating differing viewpoints and
>holding any particular set of views.

Of course. And meeting other people, seeing other cultures and living in other places will expose people to differing viewpoints - and perhaps even make them realize that the standard bogeymen (socialism, religious fundamentalism etc) are not as universally evil as people think.

>Tolerance is not the sole domain of any viewpoint.

Right - but it is the domain of people who have seen a lot. People who have never seen more than one side of an issue have a much harder time being tolerant - because they have never had to be.