Posted on 09/11/2008 9:42:58 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Thank you to Sweetness & Light for the devastating and damning reminder of where Barack Obama’s heart lies on this seventh anniversary of the 9/11 jihadi attacks:
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. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores. “Empathy” would appear to be Mr. Obama’s watchword when it comes to talking about 9/11. In one of the “very serious” articles about Mr. Obama, called “Making It,” in the current issue of The New Yorker we are treated to his response to 9/11 as published in the September 19th 2001 edition of the Hyde Park Herald:
Just this past Monday, Obama was worried about the rights of terrorists...(eye roll)
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10432456?source=most_emailed
(snip)
“At stake are constitutional liberties that can mean the difference between freedom and unjustified imprisonment, he told the crowd in Farmington Hills, Mich.
“We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist; it might be Muhammad the cabdriver. You may think it’s Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack the guy running for president,” he said, referring to the Bush administration’s arrest and detention policies toward terrorism suspects”
?????? Very strange remarks, imho.
The perpetrator is Islam. It must be irradicated. By their own words shall we damn them.
Anyone who has not read the Koran, it is the "must" read for the 21st century.
“Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”
Shows that Obama has a firm grasp on reality. I mean, all those impoverished 9/11 attackers from wealthy familes.
[/s]
This is the response I just posted at Sweetness and Light in regard to Obama’s “compassion”. I made a little mistake in my post but I’ll correct it here:
Obama is an idiot. 9/11 and Islamic terrorist jihad had nothing to do with “the desperation and disorder of the powerless” nor “how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair”. It has nothing to do with poverty nor wealth nor a “lack of empathy”. It has everything to do with something HE claims to be an expert in—constitutional law—but it is not the American Constitution but the Islamic—Sharia law and the Quran.
Sayyid Iman al-Sharif, who now resides in an Egyptian prison, wrote the book on jihad for al-Qaeda laying out all the legal principles upon which they could wage their war with their own people and especially the West and Israel. Some people like famed author Lawrence Wright (The Looming Towers) think he has recanted his original position. In truth, although he has royally ticked off Zawihiri, he has not!
This article (very long and complicated!) explains what 9/11 and all further terrorist attacks including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is all about. This is from an article called: Jihadists and Jurisprudents:The “Revisions” Literature of Sayyid Imam and Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya By Daniel J. Lav
Here are a few of what I think are key thoughts contained in this article:
“It may well be that for al-Qaeda itself political and ideological considerations trump issues in jurisprudence – that at least is the criticism directed at it by some of the figures studied in this paper – but even so, such a contention can only be understood against the backdrop of the writings on which al-Qaeda’s leaders and cadres were formed and in which they profess to believe. While mainstream Islamic scholars accuse the jihadists of having deviated from classical norms, the jihadists themselves certainly do not consider themselves to have done so. THE MODERN JIHAD GROUPS SEE THEMSELVES NOT ONLY AS NORMATIVE MUSLIMS, BUT AS LOYAL STANDARD-BEARERS OF THE CLASSICAL SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS. THERE IS IN FACT LARGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JIHADISTS AND CONSERVATIVE ISLAMIC SCHOLARS ON MANY MATTERS OF LAW, ESPECIALLY WHEN TREATING CASES IN THE ABSTRACT; THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM RESULT PRIMARILY FROM DIVERGENCE ON HOW TO CLASSIFY AND INTERPRET REALITY, AND IN CONSEQUENCE HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED TO IT.”…
“This is readily apparent in THE PIVOTAL ISSUE of rebellion against the ruler. The idea that jihadists have revived the politically activist approach in conscious opposition to the medieval quietist consensus is not correct stricto sensu.[iii] Jihadist jurisprudence is, or claims to be, as willing to tolerate profligate Muslim rulers as were mainstream classical jurisprudents; likewise, THEIR CONTENTION THAT IT IS A DUTY TO REBEL AGAINST AN APOSTATE RULER IS SO UNCONTROVERSIAL IN CLASSICAL JURISPRUDENCE AS TO BE TRIVIAL. Thus the signal issue that distinguishes a jihadist from a conservative Islamist is that of how to determine whether a ruler is MERELY PROFLIGATE OR OUTRIGHT APOSTATE. As we will see, this issue is a kind of window through which theses of a theological or ideological order are assimilated into the Islamic legal system.”…
“In another tract published in Sayyid Imam’s name, and which is almost certainly his, one who condemns terrorism or says terrorism is un-Islamic is an apostate, since he has denied the verse (8:60): “Prepare for them what you can of force and steeds of war with which to terrorize Allah’s enemy and yours.” The logic here is similar to that in the previous example: ALLAH, IN THE QURAN, COMMANDED TERRORISM, AND THUS TO DENY THAT TERRORISM IS PART OF ISLAM IS TO DENY ALLAH’S BOOK AND TO COMMIT APOSTASY.”…
“Thus, for Sayyid Imam, the necessary consequence of takfir of the ruler is takfir of the courts, parliament, political parties, the army, and even voters. The lives of huge numbers of people in Muslim countries – perhaps even the majority – are considered forfeit. Imam’s version of this domino effect is the most extreme, but ALL THE JIHADIST JURISPRUDENTS AGREE ON THE PRINCIPLE.”
Last year Sayyid Iman released a new book called the “Tarshid” which is the one that made Zawihiri howl.
“The changed reality to which the Tarshid is responding is simply the aftermath of 9/11. In the al-Hayat interview Sayyid Imam expressed his views on the attack and its consequences:
“[9/11] WAS A CATASTROPHE FOR THE MUSLIMS. [AL-QAEDA] IGNITED STRIFE THAT FOUND ITS WAY INTO EVERY HOME, and they were the cause of the imprisonment of thousands of Muslims in the prisons of various countries. They caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims - Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others. The Taliban’s Islamic Emirate was destroyed, and al-Qaeda was destroyed. They were the direct cause of the American occupation of Afghanistan and other heavy losses which there is not enough time to mention here. THEY BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL OF THIS.” …
“Sayyid Imam has not retracted takfir(apostacy)of the rulers, and for him nothing has unraveled. The prohibition of jihad that is the heart of the Tarshid instead relies on what we called a “suspension mechanism,” but in principle the entire edifice of jihadist belief – which Imam himself did much to construct – remains in place. Thus if Sayyid Imam still considers “making ready” an obligation, the jihadists could arrive at a state of ability and the jihad would recommence.
To employ another analogy, we could compare jihadist doctrine to A TIME BOMB. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya defused the bomb and did away with the danger. SAYYID IMAM SEEMS TO HAVE JUST STOPPED THE TIMER…”
The writer needs to study more history.
God Bless Michelle Malkin for the work she does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.