BHO Terrorist Apology Eight Days After 9/11

X

xrocket

New member
Michelle Malkin, writing for the Family Securities Network, brought to light today a little reported passage from the New Yorker's satirical cartoon of the Obama's and the accompanying feature article. The BHO quote in the NY magazine was previously published eight days after 9/11 in a Chicago newspaper.

This man, with these liberal left wing beliefs of the cause and effect of 9/11 should not be President of the United States of America. That is this poster's opinion. He simple does not have a clue ...


BHO ...
"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."​


Oh, the poor poor Islamic terrorist, if only they could have more empathy they would not be so mad at us. Perhaps, we should give them all our treasure (we are, oil & dollars), educate them (we are, free education) and give them all jobs (we are, overseas migration of manufacturing) so they would not think about hurting us. For, according to BHO, their actions stem from poverty and ignorance.


Can you believe this man? With these intrinsic beliefs should BHO lead America and for that matter Western civilization as we know it?



.
 
Last edited:
Let me just get this straight or if not please correct me and lay this out with plenty of refrences.

Barak Obama stated this 8 days after 9/11.

Barak Obama stated this in a Chicago newspaper.

This same statement was re-stated or re-published in the current New Yorker magazine, in which Barak and wife are satirzed on the cover.

Just want to get this all straight. Please put Baraks statement in a Quote box so it stands out.

I will now most likely have to go look at the article in the New Yorker.
 
The answer to your questions are yes.

References are cited in the first paragraph.

Please continue to do your own research ... it's much more fulfilling and convincing for one's self.


Have a great day.
 
Last edited:
I think this is the long article that has his quotes.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

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.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry XRocket, just on first read:

I

a) could not believe it.

then

b) wanted to check the facts and lay it out for those who might come along later.
 
No problem ...

As I too found it to be almost unbelievable until I researched it further.

Unfortunately, it's true. In my opinion, the only hope for our country is BHO, if elected, will use his education and intelligence to quickly evolve and morph into a realist with true centrist responses to the world's insane challenges which face these United States. Unfortunately, evidence is mounting to the contrary. BHO, for all practical purposes is a Leftist, left of most Leftist. His voting records, writings and words seem to indicate a propensity for covert radical socialism, which I find reprehensible.
 
While the Obama comments are indeed super lame, you are much, much more lame for pulling stuff out of context. I'm no fan of Obama, but come on.

From the link - Obama's paragraph before the OP:

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.
Click to expand...

Then comes that paragraph in the OP. Then the next paragraph is...

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.
Click to expand...

Then, in context, you see that over all the political fluff and pandering and pretty talk, is this: We have to learn from this tragedy. We gotta find them terrorists. We gotta stop them. More importantly, we should to try understand why they are so messed up so we can stop this culture of hatred. Lastly we gotta be rational in approach to these solutions because we're all full of rage right now.

The real problem with Obama's comments is because it would be normal and human and downright American to be supremely emotional after 9/11. Think: George Bush's speech after 9/11 - you know the one with tears in his eyes. Where's Obama's passion? Where's Obama's thirst for vengeance? Where's Obama's soul? Obama's problem is the same problem that happened to another democratic presidental candidate:

"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

"No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life,"
 
Have started to read the article but it is very long, so I will have to finish it later.

One thing I have already picked up from the article and the one thing he will try to accomplish in his first term, in fact the only thing he will truely be concerned about is

A second Term
 
Applesanity

Thank you for citing the previous and following paragraphs as they support the the original premise reflected in the BHO quote. Yes, any sane man would want our security stepped up and our military to do their job and protect American citizens abroad, but that does not deflect from BHO apologetic reference to the cause and effect of foreign terrorist and terrorism on American soil as exemplified by 9/11.

Also Applesanity, I knew it would not take very long before someone would resort to personal derogatory remarks and layoff the blame for my post shedding light on BHO's opinion on terrorism. In that, you did not disappoint.
 
Obama said:
"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."
Click to expand...

Sorry, while I generally disapprove of Obama and absolutely do not support him for President I see nothing wrong with his analysis in the above quote.

Understanding the factors that lead to such acts of violence is certainly important. Standing around and shouting "they hate our freedom" if feeble pandering to the animal which demands retribution and demonization of the enemy in all of us. I have no problem with hunting down and killing the perpetrators of those attacks along with those who gave them aid and shelter. Understanding the real motivations of such people and what factors lead to such acts though is critical in planning out future US policy.

The gist of the New Yorker article and cover was making fun of the knee jerk right for their painting of Obama as a anti-American Muslim extremist. The rage against his perfectly acceptable statement quoted above in this post is evidence that such a Pavlovian response exists. Dislike Obama for the very real reasons which exist. Hammering him for non-issues only belittles any valid criticism you may make.
 
On the subject of understanding your enemy and not giving into emotions in such important decisions I think quoting R.A. Heinlein is appropriate:

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly.
...
A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with understanding the motivations of your enemy. It does not mean accepting his actions to study what drives him.
 
Musketeer

I have no problem with studying and understanding the facts which lead to the terrorist violence of 9/11. That is part and parcel of good governance. BHO's assessment of the cause and reasons for as cited in the New Yorker's article in my opinion, demonstrates a simplistic nativity toward Islamic terrorism and at it's base reflects a socialistic thought process. I fail to see the rage in these post on this thread which you allude to. As far as Pavlovian responses to BHO writings, not every response is Pavlovian in nature. What is one man's non-issue can be a very real issue to another.
 
I think Obama's statement can stand alone. What comes after or before does not mean he is being taken out of context.

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."
Click to expand...

This is a typical elitist comment and gives more insight to the real Obama. Not a lot different than his cling to guns & religion statement. Never mind that Bin-Laden came from money, or that that 9/11 terrorist had fairly good educations and were not living in poverty. In other words, if we could just lift up all you poor impoverished un-educated people of the world, then terrorism would be a thing of the past......bull!
 
It isn't NEWS. His ties to terrorists (Aires, Hezbollah) and his sympathetic attitude toward the State sponsors of terrorism in being willing meet with them unconditionally (ala Carter) is well known.

I do see a telling absence of the usual left leaning members in this thread. No SecDef, PBP, or FwdAss explaining the misrepresentation here.

Probably working on a new McBush type McCain = Bush bloodthirsty neocon thread instead of addressing this.....can't wait to see what they come up with:p
 
I do see a telling absence of the usual left leaning members in this thread. No SecDef, PBP, or FwdAss explaining the misrepresentation here.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that every time I don't post in a thread there is tacit acceptance? You really don't understand that I am a centrist? Go figure. But I guess you care about what I think so I will make a statement for you.

I see nothing wrong with the statements made by Obama. I find them in no way apologetic for terrorists. At no time was there an indication that they should be forgiven their deeds. There was a thought that we should probably try and determine why they sprouted up; as it is not human nature to have such lack of empathy towards human beings.

There is no indication that the blame rests in the hands of the US. It is squarely on the shoulders of those that committed the acts.

Oh, the poor poor Islamic terrorist, if only they could have more empathy they would not be so mad at us. Perhaps, we should give them all our treasure (we are, oil & dollars), educate them (we are, free education) and give them all jobs (we are, overseas migration of manufacturing) so they would not think about hurting us. For, according to BHO, their actions stem from poverty and ignorance.


Can you believe this man? With these intrinsic beliefs should BHO lead America and for that matter Western civilization as we know it?
Click to expand...

No, I can't believe this man that you misrepresented. When I read his actual wording and not your false paraphrasing, it's fine.

Why would you condemn a man for trying to determine the cause and motivations of an enemy? Not doing so is supremely stupid.
 
xrocket said:
BHO's assessment of the cause and reasons for as cited in the New Yorker's article in my opinion, demonstrates a simplistic nativity toward Islamic terrorism and at it's base reflects a socialistic thought process.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are too far apart here. I believe that the prevalence of poverty and lack of education together greatly facilitate the ability of leaders to develop fanatics. Radical Islam is simply the latest great marketing tool in uniting masses in hate.

Increase the standard of living across the Muslim world along with the level of education and you greatly reduce the amount of those future individuals eager to "fly the magic carpet."
 
SecDef

Thank you for your views on BHO response to the cause and effect of the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9/11. If you had taken the time to read the New Yorker article you would know these are his cited written words and were not paraphrased by myself or anyone else.

Nowhere have I condemned BHO in my post or used the word condemned as you state. Condemned is your word SecDef, which must be Freudian on your part. I stated my opinion and it stands; BHO should not be President of the United States of America. Obviously, we disagree, which is completely normal and to be expected. I did ask two questions which you cite: "Can you believe this man?" Which was rhetorical, and the second question, "With these intrinsic beliefs should BHO lead America and for that matter Western Civilization as we know it?"

I really expected someone to step forward and provide insight into why he should be elected President given his propensity for socialist apologies as regards Islamic terrorist attacking America and killing and wounding more than three thousand Innocent souls and I'm still waiting.

Using derogatory remarks directed toward me only confirms what I thought.
 
Musketeer

You are right, we are not far apart.

I have waited to make a point thinking a BHO proponent would step forward and engage in a debate which is underlining the New Yorker quote that was published in a Chicago newspaper eight days after 9/11.

The fact that BHO birth father was a Muslim, he was born a Muslim, and educated in a Islamic Madrassa until age eleven play an underlining role in his apologetic reaction to the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks on America?

Before anyone jumps on me; I fully acknowledge and accept BHO is now and has been a devout Christian more than twenty years, as is his wife and daughters. I also fully acknowledge that for his teenage years and college years he did not practice any religion as he has stated. That said, the question is;

Will BHO, if elected President of the United States, restrict his responses to Islamic terrorism and in effect soft pedal the War On Terrorism leaving America more venerable than she is today? I believe he will and I think that within a very few short years if not months the President of the United States will face the greatest threat any nation has ever faced in the known history of mankind and it will be Islamic in nature.

What say you?
 
Wait, I thought he went to Catholic school...

After the Muslim turn around at age 11, I thought his mother put him in Catholic school, even though she was an Atheist. You see, that's the problem with this man, he will not give a true real answer to his back ground. I can't stand it. Is he muslim? Is he catholic? And I don't call that racist, "Whitie" Hating Church he was a member of, but now denounces, a Christian church.

This man stands in the middle Nowhere and over yonder. He has no real past, I think it's made up as he goes along. There is no real stance on issues either.

I got severly raised for my opinions in another similar thread. I think he is Islamic. I think he is a terrorist sympathiser. I think he will severly damage this country. I also do not think he has near enough experiance to be the President. He's been a Senator for like what, less than 10 years? How exactly does being a senator make you qualified to run a country? At least McCain was commander in the Military. BHO has nothing, accept a silver tongue and sheeps clothing.

He will run this country into the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top