Posts Tagged ‘Nidal Hassan’

Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

September 13, 2012

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

[..]

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

Advertisements

Allah Be Praised For American Mainstream Media, Say Terrorists Who Want To Murder Americans

May 24, 2010

Allah be praised for American liberals, and for their liberal mainstream media.  Without these useful idiots, more of us glorious soldiers of Allah would die, and more infidel American dogs would live.

The American mainstream media is completely useless.  Except to terrorists who want to murder as many Americans as possible.  Papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are VERY useful to them.

Washington Post Article Saved the Life of Terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki
Posted on 05/24/2010 by jveritas

In his most recent interview with an Al Qaeda media outlet terrorist “Anwar Al Awlaki” the US born Al Qaeda terrorist said that he stopped his communications when he read in the Washington Post that he is being tracked by US intelligence. He said that once he stopped his communications he left the area in Yemen where he was hiding and then this area was bombed by US airstrikes.

He also said that both terrorists “Nidal Hassan” who killed 13 of our troops at Fort Hood and “Omar Farouk Abd Al Moutaleb” who had the failed terrorist attack on the Delta Detroit plane on Christmas Day 2009 were his students and that he is honored and proud that they were his students.

In his interview he called for every muslim serving in the US military to imitate what terrorist “Nidal Hassan” did and kill US soldiers.

He said that he is very proud of his role to incite violence against Americans.

The text of his video interview with “Al Malahem” which the media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula can be found on this link below which is from “al falojah” terrorist forum. It is in Arabic.

http://alfaloja.ws/vb/showthread.php?t=117974

Below is the translation of terrorist Anwar Al Awlaki statement regarding the Washington Post article:

Beginning of the translation

Question from “Malahem” Al Qaeda media: The Americans are saying that after Nidal Hassan attack they tighten the noose around your neck, they closed your website on the internet and now you are being chased, is that true?

Answer from terrorist Al Awlaki: Yes they closed this website after Nidal Hassan attack, I wrote on the website an article approving of what Nidal Hassan did and then after that they closed the website. After that I read an article in the Washington Post that they are monitoring my communications so I was forced to stop these communications and left the area and then after that the American bombardment occurred.

End of the translation

Here is a transcript of the interview in which Al Awlaki gives credit to the Washington Post for saving his wretched life.

It’s hard to know for certain which Washington Post article Al Awlaki is referring to: liberal media are so quick to alert terrorists and undermine American national security that there are many such articles to pick from.  But this Wa Po story is a likely candidate.

Basically, about the only time the mainstream media reports the truth anymore is when they’re trying to tip off terrorists like the good useful idiots they are.

And Barack Hussein Obama, of course, has repeatedly criticized Fox News for not being more like the “useful idiot” media.

I’m sure Al Awlaki would approve this message: “Help spread terrorism, and death by jihad.  Support the American mainstream media.  We surely do.”

Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

April 7, 2010

History has an unsavory way of repeating itself.  And that is especially dangerous when Democrats are running things.

From the Wall Street Journal:

APRIL 7, 2010
The Karzai Fiasco
Echoes of Vietnam in a spat that only helps the Taliban.

President Obama isn’t faring too well at converting enemies to friends, but he does seem to have a talent for turning friends into enemies
. The latest spectacle is the all-too-public and counterproductive war of words between the White House and our putative ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The only winner so far in this spat is the Taliban.

The Obama Administration seems to have had it out for Mr. Karzai from the day it took office, amid multiple reports based on obvious U.S. leaks that Vice President Joe Biden or some other official had told the Afghan leader to shape up. The tension escalated after Mr. Karzai’s tainted but ultimately recognized re-election victory last year, and it reached the name-calling stage late last month when President Obama met Mr. Karzai on a trip to Kabul and the White House let the world know that the American had lectured the Afghan about his governing obligations.

The public rebuke was a major loss of face for Mr. Karzai, who later returned fire at the U.S., reportedly even saying at a private meeting that if the Americans kept it up, he might join the Taliban. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs kept up the schoolyard taunts yesterday by suggesting that Mr. Obama might not meet with Mr. Karzai as scheduled in Washington on May 12.

“We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes, as to whether it is constructive to have that meeting,” said Mr. Gibbs, in a show of disdain he typically reserves for House Republicans.

The kindest word for all of this is fiasco. American troops are risking their lives to implement a counterinsurgency strategy that requires winning popular support in Afghanistan, and the main message from America’s Commander in Chief to the Afghan people is that their government can’t be trusted. That ought to make it easier to win hearts and minds.

Mr. Karzai has been disappointing as a nation-builder, has tolerated corrupt officials and family members, and can be arrogant and crudely nationalistic. Presumably, however, Mr. Obama was well aware of these defects last year when he recognized the Afghan election results and then committed 20,000 more U.S. troops to the theater.

You go to war with the allies you have, and it’s contrary to any diplomatic principle to believe that continuing public humiliation will make Mr. Karzai more likely to cooperate. On the evidence of the last week, such treatment has only given the Afghan leader more incentive to make a show of his political independence from the Americans.

All the more so given that Mr. Karzai has already heard Mr. Obama promise that U.S. troops will begin leaving Afghanistan as early as July 2011. This shouting spectacle will also embolden the Taliban, who after being run out of Marjah have every reason to tell the citizens of Kandahar that even the Americans don’t like the Afghan government and are short-timers in any case.

This treatment of an ally eerily echoes the way the Kennedy Administration treated Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam in the early 1960s. On JFK’s orders, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge refused to meet with Diem, and when U.S. officials got word of a coup against Diem they let it be known they would not interfere. Diem was executed, and South Vietnam never again had a stable government.

By contrast, President George W. Bush decided to support and work closely with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the 2007 U.S. military surge in Iraq. The Maliki government was sectarian and sometimes incompetent, and some of its officials were no doubt corrupt, but Mr. Bush understood that the larger goal was to defeat al Qaeda and to stabilize the country. From FDR to Reagan, Presidents of both parties have had to tolerate allied leaders of varying talents and unsavory qualities in the wartime pursuit of more important foreign-policy goals.

Coming on the heels of the U.S. public chastisement of Israel’s government, the larger concern over the Karzai episode is what it reveals about Mr. Obama’s diplomatic frame of mind. With adversaries, he is willing to show inordinate patience, to the point of muffling his objections when opposition blood ran in the streets of Tehran. With allies, on the other hand, the President is unforgiving and insists they follow his lead or face his public wrath. The result will be that our foes fear us less, and that we have fewer friends.

I wrote an article yesterday which came out today that recognized this same (quite obvious) point: Obama commits tens of thousands of troops and spends hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, and then refuses to call the Afghani government an ally?  How is that not insane?

We won’t lose the war in Afghanistan because of our troops.  Our troops are the greatest warriors in the history of the world, and they truly deserve the word “heroes.”  If we lose, we will lose because of our failure-in-chief.

Turning Afghanistan into the next Vietnam by poisoning the national government is inherently stupid.  It is tantamount to refusing to recognize that we are fighting a war against Islamic jihadism.   The Bush Doctrine of preventative war stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”  Obama is now fundamentally altering that strategy into one that incredibly refuses to recognize that Islamic jihadism has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Obama first refused to use the phrase “war on terror” favoring the neutered (as in “having no testicles”) phrase, “Overseas contingency operation,” and now he is leaving that “overseas contingency operation” with its feet dangling in midair.

Just who or what in the hell are we supposed to be fighting???  Every single attack we have faced – be it on foreign battlefields or right here at home – was the result of a radical Islamic worldview.  And we’re supposed to pretend that we’re too morally stupid to realize that???

The recent past is a canvass full of examples.  Following a long list of Muslim terrorists attempts to create “man-caused disasters” in the US under Obama’s watch, we had a Muslim Army psychologist with “Soldier of Allah” business cards murder a dozen soldiers at a military base while screaming “Allahu Akbar!”.  Then we had a Muslim terrorist try to explode a passenger jet on Christmas day.

So, yesterday, we had another “incident” on a passenger jet plane.  A man from the Qatari embassy named Mohammed Al-Madadi was on his way to visit a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist minion named Ali Al-Marri imprisoned in Denver when he created an international incident by mocking American security authorities by “joking” that he was attempting to light his shoe bomb.

But we’re responding by increasingly assuming that Islam has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Your grandma is a bigger security risk than Osama bin Laden as far as Obama is concerned.

Obama once said he didn’t like to think in terms of “victory,” in very direct opposition to every president before him (including Ronald Reagan, who summed up his Cold War goals in four words: “We win, they lose.”).  I suppose it’s good that Obama doesn’t want victory, because he will never secure one given his America-despising policies.

Obama wanted to relabel terrorism as a “man-caused disaster“; but the only “man-caused disaster” is the Obama administration.

Newsflash: Obama Enlisted Future Terrorist To Label Rightwing As ‘Extremist’

November 6, 2009

Do you remember that incredibly ideological and disturbing Department of Homeland Security report that demonized “rightwing” people and groups as “extremists”?

The report said:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

As a pro-lifer who is opposed to illegal immigration, I found out that Obama regarded me as a double-whammy rightwing extremist.

And another passage in the DHS “rightwing extremist” report made sure to note that Americans should fear returning combat veterans:

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

How would it strike you if you were to learn that this incredibly ideological and demagogic document had been prepared in part by a man who was destined to perpetrate the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?  And that the target of this man’s terrorist attack would be the very American soldiers he had demonized in his report?

Discovered via AtlasShrugs:

Political correctness is going to rout this country. The jihadi who mowed down scores at Fort Hood was an adviser to the Homeland Security Policy Institute’s presidential transition task force. This was at the same time that the DHS was writing reports that right wing extremists like Grandma, Veterans, tea parties, patriots were the real threat. And Hasan had a jihad history.

Enemy in the White House.

Of course. Why not? He was a “moderate.” Until he wasn’t.

“Nidal Hasan: Ft. Hood Shooter Participated in Homeland Security Disaster Preparation,” from Gawker, November 6 (thanks to Mary Belle):

The gunman who killed 12 people today at Ft. Hood appears, based on current media reports, to be Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan who was listed as a participant in a Homeland Security Policy Institute’s presidential transition task force last year.

The task force was not officially affiliated with the White House. It was a project of the Homeland Security Policy Institute, an independent thinktank housed at George Washington University, aimed at drafting policy recommendations for the incoming Obama administration.

According to the task force’s May 2009 report [pdf], a “Nidal Hasan” from the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine was a task force event participant. Other participants included Senate and House staffers, Department of Homeland Security officials, Defense Department officials, and reporters for Politico, the Washington Post, and the London Times….

So, to understand, Barack Obama, who displayed such bizarre and disturbing behavior at his first appearance following the terrorist attack at Fort Hood which left 13 dead and dozens wounded, actually appointed for his DHS panel on “rightwing extremism” A GUY WHO WAS ABOUT TO BE AN “ALLAH AKBAR!” SHOUTING MUSLIM TERRORIST.

This is beyond belief, but there it is.

Chalk it up as just one more amazing radical that Barack Obama has given a forum to in order to undermine America.