Apologist For JIhad

Custom Search

  

  

Obama humbles himself to the Protector of the Two Holy Places.
 

   

 


help fight the media
  
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery . . .

Obama's Legitimate Causes

Obama’s comments about "legitimate causes" of terror groups and "root problems of causes and dangers" seems to echo little-noticed remarks the presidential candidate made eight days after 9/11 in which he said the attacks were carried out because of a lack of "empathy for others" suffering on the part of al-Qaeda, whose terrorist ideology "grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

Obama went on to imply the Sept. 11 attacks were, in part, a result of U.S. policy, lecturing the American military to minimize civilian casualties in the Middle East and urging action opposing ‘bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent.’

"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy," Obama wrote in a piece about 9/11 published Sept. 19, 2001, in Chicago’s Hyde Park Herald.

Obama may not be a Muslim, but he certainly is sympathetic.

Obama's Empathy

In this video, Obama comments on the five Muslim-American jihadists from the Washington, DC area, who were arrested in Pakistan, and who said they were on jihad.
       

"I prefer not to comment"  (01:39)
       

"I prefer not to comment."

    
There he goes  again, covering up for the brothers just like he did for the jihadist, Nidal Hassan, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.  Obama never has a bad word for Muslims.  He's just one big apologist for jihad,

Sooner or later Obama's Muslim empathy and sympathy is going to blow up right in his face, and a lot more Americans will be dead.  Just look at the recent instances of jihad provided by Pamela Geller, at Atlas Shrugs -- no doubt Obama doesn't want to comment on these events either.

Just listen to Obama's comments:
    

"...what has been remarkable...is the extraordinary accomplishments of American Muslims...how they have been woven into the fabric of our nation...fierce loyalty to America, their patriotism...blah, blah, blah..."

    
What nonsense!  Just check out these American Muslims protesting against America -- "fierce loyalty to America, their patriotism" -- just who does Obama think he's fooling?

The responsible party?  Obama blames the world-wide web for American jihadiis.

Borrowing the tag line from Flip Wilson's Geraldine character -- "the debil made me do it" -- Obama apologizes -- "the Internet made them do it" -- this would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.

Obama concludes:
    

"I think WE have a good story to tell here and one WE need to build on."

    
What's all this WE stuff?  Has Obama got a mouse in his pocket?  Just who is WE?

That pronoun could be interpreted to mean Americans -- it could also be interpreted to mean Muslims -- remember, "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."  These pols are highly skilled at using the language to deceive.

For almost two years, I have resisted labeling Obama a Muslim -- even though Muslims think he's a Muslim -- but I'm 99% sure he's not a Christian.

There's no record of a baptism, anywhere, and strolling down the aisle of a black-nationalist church and pledging allegiance to the Black Value System does not a Christian make.  At the core of Obama's faith -- whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two -- is African nativism.  In the paperback version of "The Audacity of Hope," in the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on page 195, and ending on page 208, Obama is telling us that he doesn’t really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred."

The Jesuits would say, "Give me the child, and I will mold the man."
Easy On The Enemy -- Obama's Attempt To Impress Liberals
Just whom are we trying to impress?

That's a question that occurred to me when, on his second full day in the presidency, Barack Obama announced we would close the Guantanamo detainee facility within one year.

It's a question that has kept occurring to me over the last year and nine days, even though Obama and his administration have proved unable to keep that promise.

Whom are we trying to impress by ruling out enhanced interrogation techniques on unlawful combatants, techniques that produced valuable intelligence that saved American lives?  Whom are we trying to impress by limiting questioning to the Army Field Manual?

That's a good guide for handling prisoners of war and other lawful combatants covered by international law.  But whom are we trying to impress by extending those protections to those who are not covered by the Geneva Conventions or other treaties we have signed?

Whom are we trying to impress by trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts after he already pled guilty to a military tribunal?  And trying him in New York City, where the trial will cost something like $1 billion and tie up Lower Manhattan for years?

Would these people we are trying to impress be that much less impressed if the administration belatedly follows the advice of Mayor Bloomberg and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and stages that trial on a military base or elsewhere outside of New York City?

And whom are we trying to impress by treating the failed Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not as a military combatant but as a common civilian criminal, even though he launched an attack on America from outside the country?  Whom are we trying to impress by administering Miranda warnings and telling him that he has a right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent?

If the answer to these questions is that we are trying to impress Islamist terrorists, we've clearly failed.

Continue reading Michael Barone here . . .
Obama's P.R. Helps Terrorists
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say that when Obama's leading counter-terrorism staff member, John Brennan, says that "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaida," he has it exactly backward.

It is Obama's efforts to crow about how effective he is in fighting terrorism that are helping al-Qaida.  What kind of policy is it to announce to the world that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Nigerian terrorist who attempted to blow up a plane as it approached Detroit this past Christmas, is talking to investigators and giving them much valuable information?

Obama's people put the story out to counter accusations that their decision to try Mutallab in a civilian court and to permit him access to an attorney jeopardized efforts to interrogate him.  Stung by the charge that they were blowing a chance to learn about subsequent al-Qaida plans, they told the media that Mutallab was being very cooperative, especially after a visit from his family.

While releasing this information may help Obama politically and certainly pushes back those of us who criticized him for handling the Mutallab case civilly, it provides al-Qaida with a timely warning that we are on to their plans and that Mutallab has explained to us what they have up their sleeves.  In counter-terrorism, knowing your enemy's plans is key to thwarting them.  And, if al-Qaida knows that we are prepared, they will, obviously, change their plans.

Continue reading here . . .
The Audacity Of Smoke
Mike Adams says Obama is a dishonest man.  He is also a poor excuse for a constitutional law scholar.  Both of these accusations can be supported by looking at his handling of the recent controversies involving the Ground Zero mosque and an unhinged pastor’s planned burning of the Koran.

When the Ground Zero mosque controversy broke out, Obama had this to say about religious freedom:
    

"As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are."

    
A few weeks later, when the Koran-burning controversy broke out, Obama had this to say about religious freedom:
    

"If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans.  That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."

    
What Obama should have said was that Muslims a) Have a legal right to engage in offensive religious expression by building a mosque near Ground Zero but that b) It would be a very bad idea to do so because it would make Muslims look like uncouth barbarians.

Obama could have then maintained consistency by saying that Christians a) Have a legal right to engage in offensive religious expression by burning the Koran but that b) It would be a very bad idea to do so because it would make Christians look like uncouth barbarians.

Instead, Obama took the position that the Mosque building is a form of free religious expression while the Koran burning is an attack on free religious expression.  Is there any explanation for holding these two positions simultaneously?  Sure there is.

The common thread between Obama’s two positions is favoritism of Islam.  Barack Obama was educated in a Koranic school as a child in Indonesia.  He subsequently claimed to have rejected Islam in favor of Christianity in what some consider to have been an insincere political move.  That may sound harsh but consider this alternative: If Obama actually did convert to Christianity, the document he defends, The Koran, would call for his execution.

But Obama does not invoke allegiance to Islam as justification for his opposition to the burning of the Koran.  Instead, he invokes fear of Islam.  He suggests that Muslims may kill our troops in response to the Koran burning.

There are real reasons to question whether the burning of the Koran in Florida would actually endanger our troops by pushing potential extremists over the edge.  But the real flaw in Obama’s rhetoric is not factual.  It is legal.

The mere suggestion that a potentially violent action in response to free speech can actually negate free speech is old.  It is a notion known as the heckler’s veto.  As a constitutional law instructor, Obama knows that the U. S. Constitution does not allow a heckler’s veto over free speech.  The idea that there might be a violent response to free speech cannot be allowed to negate free speech.  To rule otherwise would be to reward violence.

That is why Obama was wrong to say that Koran burning is contrary to our American values of freedom.  Islamic violence in response to offensive speech is contrary to our American values of freedom.
Obama Won't Condemn Jihad
Jim Hoft says Barack Obama would not condemn "jihad" and said he regretted that the "great religion" of Islam has been distorted by a few extremists today.

Those "few extremists" have carried out 16,350 deadly attacks since 9-11.

The Hindu reports:
    

Barack Obama on Sunday regretted that the "great religion" of Islam has been distorted by a few extremists to justify violence towards innocent people and called for isolating these elements.

Obama also said that people will have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is the way to mediate differences among them.

"I think all of us have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is the way to mediate our differences," he added.

Obama expressed these views when a Muslim student A. Ansari lobbed a question asking for his views on jihad during his interaction with students of St Xavier’s college here.

"I think all of us recognize that this great religion (Islam) in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified," he said.

"So, one of the challenges the world faces is how to "isolate" those who have these distorted notions of religious war…and reaffirm those who see faces of all sorts whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian and a Jew or any other religion that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity," he added.

Obama said the phrase "Jihad" has different interpretations.  Islam is one of the great religions and majority of its one billion practices believe in peace, justice and tolerance, he added.

    
Daniel Pipes says jihad is "holy war."  Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag).  Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so.  The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad.  (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.)  The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life.  That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632.  It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain.  Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:
    

•  The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
  Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
  Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
•  Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
•  Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
•  Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.

    
But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom."  For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor.  The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million -- making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent.

Continue reading Pipes here . . .
Bombs Don't Kill People -- Terrorists Do
Bruce Walker says the Left's obsession with focusing on dangerous things, rather than dangerous people, shows up in different ways.  Bombs, for example, are designed to be safe.  My father served at Fort Sill Army Base during part of his time in military service.  That base is home to the United States Army Field Artillery School.  In addition, every Marine trains in field artillery trains at Fort Sill, as do friendly military forces from other nations.  The sheer amount of potential destructive power in the hands of these young men dwarfs everything that each terrorist group in the Middle East could ever muster.  Yet Fort Sill is a very safe place to be.  Extreme caution is taken to make sure that the vast munitions at this base are no threat to anyone.  Why?  The people with artillery are the good guys.  Artillery shells don't kill people; bad guys do.

The whole dreary debate over gun control smacks of the same tone-deaf Leftist foolishness.  Americans grew up with guns, and often guns much less safe than those made today.  Young boys went out and hunted game.  Many families grew up with rifles or shotguns on racks in the living room.  When people owned guns and knew how to use the guns safely, the danger of violent crime was much lower than today.  The violent crime rate in America has increased by 170% since 1960 despite the increased number of federal and state gun control laws.  Guns did not cause these crimes; criminals did.  Treating all Americans like criminals did not make us safer at all.

The leftist lunacy when it comes to potentially dangerous things and genuinely dangerous people was rampant during the Cold War.  Nuclear weapons, silly people across the Free World told us, were a grave danger to the survival of mankind.  Yet what sane person lost a wink of sleep because France had 482 nuclear warheads, or because Britain had 200 nuclear warheads?  It was inconceivable that either nation, which had the power to kill perhaps 100 million people in an hour, would ever do so.  Israel has a significant number of nuclear weapons, and so does India.  Those nations would use their weapons only as a last resort.

The danger during the Cold War was the result of a totalitarian power possessing large numbers of nuclear weapons.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, the danger of nuclear war diminished astronomically.  As North Korea increases its puny nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, the world faces real and great danger -- not because of the things (the nuclear weapons), but rather because of the people involved (tormented slaves of an erratic Eastern potentate garbed in the risible "science" of Karl Marx).  The danger of fission weapons (atomic bombs), fusion weapons (hydrogen bombs), biological weapons, and chemical weapons is the malice of those who possess it.  Weapons of mass destruction do not kill people; mad tyrants do.

This is precisely the disconnect which the Left faces with airport security and passenger examinations.  The danger is not that someone will bring a handgun, a knife, or even an explosive on an airliner.  Properly stored and maintained, none of these will do the slightest harm to anyone.  In fact, if every passenger on September 11, 2001 had been armed, the terrorists would almost certainly have been stopped.  Disarming the innocent never stops violence.

Moreover, the "things" which can be used to cause injury are as endless as human imagination, and in the hands of terrorists, almost anything can be used to murder large numbers of people.  The variety of methods and tools of destruction are as broad as the bored minds of evil men.  Anyone who has toured a prison can hear from guards about the remarkable ingenuity with which inmates can make real-looking "guns" or very real knives and other weapons.

The only way remove enough of the "things" which threaten air travel would be to strip-search every passenger, issue official garb (like inmates in prison or in a mental institution), and haul these passengers in an environment as sterile and as stark as the suicide watch cell of a county jail.  We know, of course, the sane, humane, and easy way to make us safe: profile and research passengers.  Before that happens, however, the Left must realize that life is full of "things" and that these are almost never the real problem.  Neither the Holocaust nor the Gulag was a product of railroads and cattle cars.  Those horrors were, as with the terrorists who would murder young children flying to Grandmother for Thanksgiving, the product of monsters.  The way to end their evil is to defeat them.
Obama's Cover-Up Of Jihad
Pamela Geller has posted a video of the terrorist attack on a Christian church in Egypt that shows the car explosion and Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar"
    
    
Obama's condemnation of the Islamic attacks on Christmas and New Year's was grotesque, misleading and deceptive. This is the Obama's statement on the terrorist attacks in Egypt and Nigeria
    

"I strongly condemn the separate and outrageous terrorist bombing attacks in Egypt and Nigeria. The attack on a church in Alexandria, Egypt caused 21 reported deaths and dozens of injured from both the Christian and Muslim communities."

    
Geller says these were jihadist attacks against Christians.  Islamic supremacists slaughtering non-Muslims, and asks, "Does Obama mourn the deaths of the homicide bombers as well?"  This is a very dangerous man.

The Muslim authorities were in on it.  Egyptian security guards withdrew one hour before the church blast, say eyewitnesses.

The car explosion that went off in front of Saints Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria killed 21 and injured 96 parishioners who were attending a New Year's Eve Mass.  According to church officials and eyewitnesses, there are many more victims that are still unidentified and whose body parts were strewn all over the street outside the church.  The body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting Jihadist chants.

According to eyewitnesses, a green Skoda car pull up outside the church shortly after midnight.  Two men got out, one of them talked shortly on his mobile phone, and the explosion occurred almost immediately after they left the scene.  On the back of the Skoda was a sticker with the words "the rest is coming."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Flashback
Remember this?  On November 6, 2009, the day after Maj. Nidal Hasan's jihad on Ft. Hood, Barack Obama urged Americans not to jump to conclusions.
    
    
That was then.  Now?  After the Tucson Tragedy?  Crickets . . .
Obama's Islamic Tilt In Egypt
Tom Tancredo says the difference between Jimmy Carter's mistakes in handling the 1979 revolution in Iran and Obama's handling of the 2011 revolution in Egypt is that Carter's team made mistakes out of ignorance and naiveté.  Thirty-one years later, Obama's diplomatic team cannot claim naiveté in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and the radical Islamists.  Obama is consciously supporting the Islamists in Egypt and facilitating their rise to power.

How else can one explain the extraordinary statements of James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence, in his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, that the Muslim Brotherhood is a "secular organization" that has "eschewed violence?"  They operate hospitals in Egypt, so they must be peace-loving humanitarians?  Hamas operates charities in the Gaza territory, so they are not really dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

We might forgive some American citizens for being confused about the character and goals of some Islamic organizations disguised as charities, but don't we expect more from our intelligence community?  As one wit has already observed following Clapper's testimony, we might as well abolish Clapper's agency and save the taxpayers $40 billion if this is the quality of intelligence our policymakers are getting from that bureaucracy.

Clapper's statements, made this past week at the height of the Egyptian crisis, might be excused or explained away if they were an isolated incident.  But his statements are part of a pattern of mischaracterizing and underestimating the threat from radical Islam.  Clapper's testimony can only be viewed as part of the Obama administration's persistent efforts to humanize the Muslim Brotherhood and prepare the ground for a new Islamist-run Egyptian government.

In his televised interview on Super Bowl Sunday with Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly, Obama specifically included the Muslim Brotherhood in the groups that must be included in any new Egyptian government.  This is the equivalent of President Woodrow Wilson welcoming the Bolsheviks into the Russian government in 1917.

Obama went to Cairo in 2009 to deliver his first speech on foreign soil, a speech that was billed as his "outreach to the Muslim world."  Obama specifically requested that representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited to the speech.

In 2005 parliamentary elections in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 percent of the vote by putting on a moderate face and talking about social reforms and civil liberties.  But in 2008 they replaced their leadership with a more fundamentalist, less secular group that has renewed the call for Shariah law and a turn away from Western civil institutions.  Surely, our intelligence community knows this.

Today in Egypt, there are a dozen or more secular, reformist parties that will seek public support in the next elections.  We have to ask, why is the Obama administration favoring the Muslim Brotherhood and insisting that they be included in any constitutional reform committee?
Napolitano Covers For Jihad -- Again
Republican lawmakers chided Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano Wednesday for not being frank about the nature of the terrorist threat posed by radical Islamist groups and for allowing "political correctness" to hamper the work of her department.

"We’ve got to focus on those people who are going to do us harm," Rep. Paul Broun, Georgia Republican, told a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, "And this administration and your department has seemed to be very averse to focusing on those."

Part of the problem, Broun said, was the department’s apparent unwillingness to name "the ideological factor behind" the terrorist threat, "namely Islamic extremism."

Napolitano defended the Department of Homeland Security, saying, "Hundreds of thousands of men and women come to work every day to protect the American people."

Napolitano said the use of the term "violent extremism" rather than "jihadi" or "Islamist" to describe the terror threat was driven by concern that officials "not overlook other types of extremism that can be homegrown and that we, indeed, have experiences with."

In other responses, she emphasized that the administration sees Islamic extremists as only one among several terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland.

"Many kinds of violent motivations threaten our security," she said.  "We see a variety of different types."

Her prepared testimony referenced a report last year by the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions that examined 86 U.S. terrorism cases between 1999 and 2009 and found that nearly half were related to al Qaeda or al Qaeda-inspired ideology, with the remainder a result of "a number of other violent extremist motivations" such as white supremacist, animal rights, anti-abortion or "militia/anti-government" ideologies.

Talk about comparing apples to oranges!  Animal rights?  What nonsense!

She told the hearing that her department is focused on giving tools to local law enforcement so they could spot "the tactics, the techniques, the behaviors that would indicate that a violent act, a terrorist act is impending," regardless of motivation.

"Some of those [attacks] are inspired by Islamist groups.  Others can be inspired by, like, anti-government groups -- flying a plane into the [Internal Revenue Service] building, for example," she said, referring to an incident in February 2010 when software engineer Joseph Stack crashed a small plane into a federal building, killing himself and an IRS employee.

Continue reading here . . .
Jihad?  What Jihad?  Obama Don't See No Jihad
Peter Wilson says an Islamic terrorist described as a "21-year-old Kosovar who lives in Frankfurt," opened fire at the Frankfurt Airport, killing two American soldiers, and wounding two others.  Kosovo's population is 80% Muslim.  The New York Times reports that "the gunman first talked to the military personnel to find out who they were and then opened fire, shouting 'God is greatest' in Arabic."

Obama mentioned the incident at a press conference:
    

"I want to take a brief moment just to say a few words about a tragic event that took place earlier today in Frankfurt, Germany... We don't have all the information yet, and you will be fully briefed as we get more information, but this is a stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making all around the world to keep us safe, and the dangers that they face all around the globe."

    
Once again, Obama and the ObamaMedia -- even the report on Fox News -- scrupulously avoid the words "Muslim," "Islam," or "jihad" and reference to any possible religious motive for the attack.  It is true that we don't have "all the information" -- not that this has been any impediment in the past for Obama to shoot off his mouth -- but we do have some extremely strong evidence that the man was an Islamic terrorist.  Obama however sticks to vague generalities and switches the focus away from the murderer toward the sacrifices of the victims.

"A tragic event?"  "A stark reminder" of "sacrifices" to "keep us safe" from "dangers?"  No, Mr. Obama, it's a stark reminder that the world is full of Muslim males in their twenties who believe that Allah has commanded them to murder Americans.

Obama will never point the finger at Islam, Muslims or jihad.  Never!  It doesn't matter how many times these 7th century savages kill Americans -- or others.  Obama will continue to talk about the Muslim's contributions to "American Dream."

Remember Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood jihadist that handed out "Soldiers of Allah" business cards, and who murdered 13 and wounded 30 more while screaming "Allahu Akbar?"

         
His jihad attack was formally classified as "workplace violence," and there was no mention of jihad.  None!  According to the  Obama administration, Hasan had a bad day.
Obama’s State Of Islamic Denial
The Washington Times has a clue for Barack: "Allahu akbar" is the Islamists' war cry.

U.S. troops are gunned down by a shooter who screams "Allahu akbar!" before opening fire.  Official statements are rushed out: The perpetrator was a lone wolf; his motive was unclear; there are no links to terrorism.  Sound familiar?  It should, because when Islam is the cause of American tragedy, Obama hides his head in the sand.

On Wednesday, a young Kosovar named Arif Uka opened fire on a bus load of U.S. Air Force personnel in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and wounding two more.  Witnesses say he repeatedly shouted the jihadist battle cry, "Allahu akbar" as he emptied his weapon and screamed "Jihad! Jihad!" when tackled by German police.  Uka’s victims had been heading to the fight in Afghanistan but because the jihadists have a global battlespace, the war came to them instead.

Obama made a typical noncommittal statement shortly after the shooting, saying it was a "stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making all around the world to keep us safe, and the dangers that they face all around the globe."  He made no mention of the nature of the threat or the reason for the sacrifices.  In this respect, he was behaving true to form.

The Frankfurt shooting is the latest in a troubling series of jihadist terror attacks in which the Obama administration refuses to face reality.  Among the first was the June 1, 2009, shooting at a recruiting station in Little Rock.  Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who had recently travelled to Yemen, killed one U.S. Army recruiter and wounded another.  Muhammad told police if other troops had been available, he would have shot them too.  The White House waited two days before making a statement that omitted any reference to the attacker or his jihadist motives.

The Nov. 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre, in which 14 were killed and 30 wounded, was given a persistent coat of whitewash from the Obama administration.  The first coat was applied with initial statements that shooter Nidal Malik Hassan was a "lone wolf" and continued through the comprehensive "force protection review" that somehow omitted any reference to Hasan’s jihadist motives or contacts with al Qaeda.

The Obama team had a similarly slippery reaction to the Dec. 25, 2009, attempted "crotch bomber" attack on Northwest flight 253.  Al Qaeda-linked bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was initially not even charged with attempting to commit an act of terrorism.  Faisal Shahzad, who attempted the Times Square bombing in May 2010, was also called a lone wolf with no ties to terrorism and was even described as more a victim of the economic downturn than a committed Islamic extremist.  In all these cases, the initial assessments turned out to be wrong, yet the White House still obstinately refuses to discuss the jihadist motives of the terrorists involved.

The Obama administration’s knee-jerk instinct to deny reality in hopes it will go away is clearly not working.  How many Americans have to die before Obama at long last admits the nature of the Islamist threat that killed them?

Related:  Krauthammer criticizes Obama for treating U.S. troop shooting in Germany like "a bus accident."
Comments . . .
***  
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009 - 2011

All right reserved