It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Radical Islamist Groups Unfazed By Obama's Kinder, Gentler Approach

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Mere days after the entire world watched his historic peacemaking tour of the Mideast, President Obama received at least one vote of negative from radical Islamists. On June 9, 2009 the Taliban truck bombed the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar, Pakistan, killing 11 people and injuring at least 50. One must consider that radical Islamists have been further emboldened by the President’s peaceful rhetoric.




We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals." – President elect Barrack Obama, Jan. 9, 2009


This while knowing that the radical Islamists don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions.

And on the use of advanced interrogation techniques:




At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians. And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks. - President Barrack Obama, excerpted from 100th-Day Press Briefing, April 29, 2009


Successful bombings are critical recruitment tools too. If we are coordinating intelligence with Pakistan it’s not working.

On his Mideast tour, the President’s call for a “new beginning” with Muslim nations based on mutual interest and respect received this reaction from Hassan Fadlallah, a lawmaker representing Lebanon's Iranian-backed Shi'ite Hezbollah group:




"The Islamic world does not need moral or political sermons, it needs a fundamental change in American policy beginning with a halt to complete support for Israeli aggression against the region, especially against Lebanese and Palestinians, an American withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a stop to its interference in the affairs of Islamic countries.”


Fadlallah might get his wish on Israel as the President is unlinking with them faster than he did Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly not Obama priorities as he is bogged down running GM and selling Chrysler. The President's tour was viewed by the world but not nearly everyone was inspired by his sermon.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...

What he is doing is reaching out to the moderates and fence-sitters, and judging by the recent in Lebanon (and Iran? cross your fingers!) it's working.

To be fair, Bush did try to do the same thing to some extent, just not very effectively.



One must consider that radical Islamists have been further emboldened by the President’s peaceful rhetoric.


Especially if one has a partisan axe to grind



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...

What he is doing is reaching out to the moderates and fence-sitters, and judging by the recent in Lebanon (and Iran? cross your fingers!) it's working.

To be fair, Bush did try to do the same thing to some extent, just not very effectively.



One must consider that radical Islamists have been further emboldened by the President’s peaceful rhetoric.


Especially if one has a partisan axe to grind


agreed!

What Obama seems to be doing is marginalizing the extremism - much more effective than any bomb - unless it is a thermonuclear one.

grind
grind
evil doers
grind
evil doers
grind
evil doers....



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Surely the Muslim nations take all that American presidents say with, shall we say, a big block of salt, instead of just a grain of it? GHWB said we are a kinder, gentler nation.
And his son said he was a "compassionate conservative".


Has Obama done anything to really show that he is "hope and change"?

I haven't seen it if he has. Just the same ole same ole, at least for other nations. Of course, that is my own, perhaps, clouded opinion. But, then, I am pretty much an anti any American president. I'm still waiting for the opportunity to say, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my president." So far they have never failed to disappoint me.

The king of Saudi Arabia is reported to have told Obama that Obama must impose his will upon the Middle East. Huh? Isn't that part of the problem already?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Radical Islamist Groups Unfazed By Obama's Kinder, Gentler Approach

Obama's not trying to reach out to those groups, he's trying to discourage the anti-American message that makes it entirely too easy for them to recruit bloodthirsty extremist.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
But I thought the "Promised One" was going to change all the evil in the world through dialogue and understanding.

Damnnnnnn ......... guess it didn't work!

Try it another way - kill them where you find them!

It's kind of like . . . whack-a-mole - but more noisy!

You just get a hammer for each hand.

Does anyone else think this cherry-boy Obama is starting to panic? I mean nothing - NOTHING he predicted or anticipated has gone like he thought it would.

Comes from going around with your head in the clouds, getting your counsel from Ayers and Wright.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Talk is cheap and so far that's all Obama has done.

We have been fanning the flames of resentment and apartheid in the Middle East for decades.

Is anyone really so naive that a flowery speach, half carrot, half stick is going to just nullify 4 solid decades of idiotic foreign policy?

Extremists aren't born over night, it takes years of resentments and real percieved slights, and offenses to develop a groundswell of resentment that lends itself to an extremist style group.

How you get to be a real Master is by proving you are stronger.

You don't prove you are stronger by hitting back.

You prove you are stronger by taking the blows and smiling.

After they are exhausted from swinging and have done everything they can to hurt you, and you are still sitting there smiling with arms wide open, then that's when you have turned an advesary into a friend and that's the only way you turn an advesary into a friend.

It takes a lot more strength to make peace and friends than it does war and enemies, and all our endless wars are doing is making enemies.

It's going to take more than a well crafted speach that has not one thing tangible attached to it as yet to change attitudes.

He can't even change your attitude OP! Are you really expecting the people we have gone out of our way to make enemies with to change theirs over one speach?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
But I thought the "Promised One" was going to change all the evil in the world through dialogue and understanding.

Damnnnnnn ......... guess it didn't work!

Try it another way - kill them where you find them!

It's kind of like . . . whack-a-mole - but more noisy!

You just get a hammer for each hand.

Does anyone else think this cherry-boy Obama is starting to panic? I mean nothing - NOTHING he predicted or anticipated has gone like he thought it would.

Comes from going around with your head in the clouds, getting your counsel from Ayers and Wright.





chicken squanto




BEIRUT, Lebanon — An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.

Related
In Lebanon Vote, Stark Options, Complex Choices (June 6, 2009)

Foreign Money Seeks to Buy Lebanese Votes (April 23, 2009)

Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.


www.nytimes.com...



too bad...



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...


Who wants him to reach out to extremists? I for one would prefer he was tough on extremist agendas. He was "preaching to the choir" on his Mideast tour. I mentioned that we must consider radical Islamists have been further emboldened. What is partisan about that? Is that not a consideration of everyone? Would you say that Democrats for instance don't care if extremists are made more comfortable in their extremism by our President? Would it take another strike on the US itself to convince you?

Moderates don't need to be addressed, he's not a threat to them. Wouldn't you say? What has President Obama done to irritate moderates? Well, there's this back stabbing of Israel but the moderates involved there are Jews that voted for him. Do you think it's safe for him to abandon those Jewish supporters at this time? I would think so, they're not the terrorist types.

More to the point the President has told extremists on a number of occasions that he would more or less turn the other cheek. This includes the Geneva Convention for terrorists, backing down the US missile defense and backsliding on Pakistan.



"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.


The entire article:

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
On backsliding on Pakistan:



When you map W.M.D. and terrorism, all roads intersect in Pakistan.

The nuclear security of the arsenal is now a lot better than it was. But the unknown variable here is the future of Pakistan itself, because it’s not hard to envision a situation in which the state’s authority falls apart and you’re not sure who’s in control of the weapons, the nuclear labs, the materials. - Graham Allison, Harvard professor and a leading nuclear expert excerpted from the New York Times article that follows


This week's horrific bombing does not give me confidence that Pakistan is secure.

Obama's Worst Pakistan Nightmare - New York Times



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by xmotex
Obama isn't trying to "reach out" to the hardened extremists, there is no point in doing so. He'd have as much luck making buddies with the Aryan Nations whackos...


Who wants him to reach out to extremists? I for one would prefer he was tough on extremist agendas. He was "preaching to the choir" on his Mideast tour. I mentioned that we must consider radical Islamists have been further emboldened. What is partisan about that? Is that not a consideration of everyone? Would you say that Democrats for instance don't care if extremists are made more comfortable in their extremism by our President? Would it take another strike on the US itself to convince you?

Moderates don't need to be addressed, he's not a threat to them. Wouldn't you say? What has President Obama done to irritate moderates? Well, there's this back stabbing of Israel but the moderates involved there are Jews that voted for him. Do you think it's safe for him to abandon those Jewish supporters at this time? I would think so, they're not the terrorist types.

More to the point the President has told extremists on a number of occasions that he would more or less turn the other cheek. This includes the Geneva Convention for terrorists, backing down the US missile defense and backsliding on Pakistan.



"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.


The entire article:

Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama


The point is if the populace ( that is the majority of countries with such extremists) reject terrorism, it will be much more likely that THEY will police the problem, not the US.

Then the countries, such a Lebanon, can make such behavior unacceptable in their society, pass and enforce laws which will greatly aid "the war on terror".

We can stop spending hundreds of billions and THEY can creep out of the middle ages mentality and join modernity.

Who cares if they are emboldened, if they can be arrested at home by their government, with their laws and personnel.
All before it becomes our problem, LIKE A SMOKING GUN, IN THE SHAPE OF A MUSHROOM CLOUD.

about time



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

We can stop spending hundreds of billions and THEY can creep out of the middle ages mentality and join modernity.

Who cares if they are emboldened, if they can be arrested at home by their government, with their laws and personnel.
All before it becomes our problem, LIKE A SMOKING GUN, IN THE SHAPE OF A MUSHROOM CLOUD.

about time



Saudi Arabia exports their dissident sons. Why is it these young men don't attack the tyrant sheiks they fled from? Because those tyrants never show weakness to anyone. These and other Muslim outcasts take shelter in weaker Islamic nations and so their home governments have no interest in stopping them. These dissidents take their teenage angst out on the non-Muslim world much to the approval of their homelands. A bad Muslim trumps a non-Muslim every time and so we will continue spending billions.

Creep is the operative word. Obama's wife would not accompany him on this historical tour and why is that? The so called moderates and fence sitters would have been offended by her modernity. And if she had attended and "burka'd up", she would have been ridiculed by the liberal media they court at home. You are expecting too much from this young religion and its fundamentalist leaders. There is nothing current or historical to indicate they will "moderate" or "creep" to modernity. Their book does not allow it. The few that "moderate" and can afford to, simply get out of Dodge. But they never stop looking back over their shoulders.

Islam was never intended to co-exist.



Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which has to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions. - Professor Moshe Sharon


I think you might find this informative.

The Agenda of Islam



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Hemisphere
 


Pakistan is certainly not secure, this has been true since long before the current administration took office, and Obama's new approach will not make it so suddenly - I am not aware anyone has claimed it would.

How is it that this one bombing invalidates a new approach (which BTW, does not consist of "turning the other cheek" to violence) when all the bombings and mayhem around the planet during the previous administration did not invalidate their "get tough" approach?

To claim this seems disingenuous and frankly partisan.

The truth is, it's way too early for any ideological camp to declare victory, as it takes years to see the trends that result from these kinds of policy changes.

I'm big on the "iron fist in a velvet glove" approach myself.

The right seems to suffer from a peculiar inability to parse the "velvet glove" half of that equation, the (western) left the "iron fist" part



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by Hemisphere
 

How is it that this one bombing invalidates a new approach (which BTW, does not consist of "turning the other cheek" to violence) when all the bombings and mayhem around the planet during the previous administration did not invalidate their "get tough" approach?

To claim this seems disingenuous and frankly partisan.

The truth is, it's way too early for any ideological camp to declare victory, as it takes years to see the trends that result from these kinds of policy changes.


Does not invalidate the approach it focuses the true impact. This was another vicotry lap, nothing more. One bombing does not invalidate the approach it's merely one of a number immediately following the make nice tour. There has been a constant stream of events since his innaugeration that invalidates the approach. Here's a partial list from this week alone.

At Least 40 Killed in Pakistan Mosque Bombing - June 5, 2009

Excerpted from above link: "At least forty people are reportedly dead following a bomb attack on a mosque near Pakistan’s Swat Valley. It’s the ninth bombing to hit Pakistan since government forces launched a US-backed attack on Taliban militants in April."

Militants Strike Hotel in Pakistan, Killing 11 - June 9, 2009

Al Qaeda car bomb kills 28 Iraqis - June 10, 2009

Excerpted from above link: "Iraqi officials blamed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a largely Iraqi group with some foreign leadership."

This Iraq incident is one of many coming just weeks prior to the planned June 30th pullout of troops from major towns and cities. There is nothing gained from advertising your soft intentions, goals and means of achieving them to hardened enemies. Pakistan has gone from bad to worse following his campaign trail tough talk without backing it up. Instead of correcting his mistake, he insists on pantsing himself. Go right ahead, do as you please, I've proven I'm a softy and that I'm actually one of your brethren. Last week he confirmed that in case someone missed the point.



I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. - President Barrack Obama


He says we need not be in competition but the Islamic nations under Sharia law have scriptural mandates to the contrary.



Between you and me, I have no party affiliation. The last time I voted for either Republican or Democrat was for John Glenn(D) as a write in candidate in 1984. No, that was not the last time I voted. I have voted in every presidential election I was entitled to. I have continually voted for the man not the party. I'm for the preservation of our Republic first and foremost. The Republicans and Democrats have both proven in recent decades that is very low on their list of priorities. I certainly did not agree with all of the Bush admin's hawkish behavior as that was mostly opportunist and left us economically vulnerable as we have seen. The hijackers were Saudi not Iraqi. Where did we invade? That spoke volumes.

I'm an equal opportunity skeptic, it's Obama's turn.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
And the beat goes on...

Anti-Taliban cleric killed in Pakistani blast - June 12, 2009

Iraq parliament Sunni leader killed at mosque - June 12, 2009

Excerpted from above link:




The head of the Iraqi parliament's biggest Sunni Muslim bloc was killed at a mosque on Friday, officials said, an assassination which could undermine efforts for sectarian reconciliation in Iraq. The killing coincided with coalition negotiations by parties before parliamentary polls due in January, seen as a key test of whether Iraq's Sunnis, Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds can live at peace after years of bloodshed since the 2003 U.S. invasion. - Reuters


and from Mr. Obama, August of 2007:




“My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don't think that there's ever been any doubt about that. And I don't think that there's any doubt that as long as US troops are present, that, you know, they are going to be doing outstanding work.

“It doesn't change the underlying assessment, which is that there's not a military solution to the problem in Iraq, and that the political dynamic in Iraq has not changed. The only thing that the Iraqi legislature appears to have agreed to, as the surge took place, was a motion to adjourn and go on vacation.

“And the ongoing question is how can we trigger a serious conversation and a responsible conversation between the Shiite and the Sunni and the Kurds that will reduce the sectarian conflict. That is not happening, and until it does, we are going to continue to see long-term problems, there, and it's my assessment that until we begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq, we're not going to get the sort of serious talks within Iraq and in the region, that are required.”


And so we should consider the current violence has been brought on by the upcoming withdrawal and is the precursor to serious talks as per Mr Obama. This would seem correct. It would also seem that the use of the "surge" was crucial in stabilizing the country and providing a model of what could be achieved. It would appear that the US military presence, the "threat" if you will, was useful in achieving that stability.

Obama Wants a Surge
of His Own



Parcel bomb defused at Beirut government building - June 12, 2009

Excerpted from above link:



On Sunday the U.S.-backed coalition, led by politician Saad al-Hariri, won a parliamentary election against an alliance that includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah. - Reuters


NATO ministers back shake-up in U.S. Afghan command - June 12, 2009

Excerpted from above link:




The structure draws heavily on U.S. experience in Iraq.


And...




Appathurai said the command shake-up was needed given the big surge in troop numbers announced by Obama. - David Brunnstrom, Reuters


Wow!!! I'm guessing some of the Islamic world did not make the switch to digital in time for President Obama's tour. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, this is a part of the world that has traditionally had almost every change tinged with violence. I again pose the question, why the smiley tour when the response of extremists would not be changed? He knew he was preaching to the choir. But as long there's fuel in Air Force One and he has moderates to charm...

Now as for Mr Brunnstrom, my guess is he will be contacted by the Obama White House for having used the "surge" word in his article. Hope and change good, surge bad. But it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." There's a lot of mixed messages being sent by Obama. He distances himself verbally from the previous administration but his actions tell another story. How much extremist resentment does he build from publicly denouncing past US policy? Who pays for that resentment?

There's nothing wrong in using what has worked in the past. Why the verbal denouncement of the previous administration at every turn? If he were simply denouncing our being in Iraq in the first place I could agree with that. But that would be bashing a good number of liberals too. See: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." So why the constant apology for US military actions when in reality you will be continuing those actions? No other US president has bad mouthed America. And to what end? It can only be personal aggrandizement. 'I want the world to like me.' The cult of personality. Hypocrisy? A Somali gunboat load. But this is the "rock star' that was elected.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join