BHO Terrorist Apology Eight Days After 9/11

Stinky Is OK

BHO, Nine days after 9/11... "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.

BHO, felt strong enough to compose those apologetic words when our country suffered a great tragedy at the hands of Muslim terrorist and in mourning. Ignore the words, quibble with the timing, question the publication and for that matter disparage the messenger, but it is not possible for any normal intelligent American citizen not to understand BHO wrote it.
 
BHO, felt strong enough to compose those apologetic words when our country suffered a great tragedy at the hands of Muslim terrorist and in mourning. Ignore the words, quibble with the timing, question the publication and for that matter disparage the messenger, but it is not possible for any normal intelligent American citizen not to understand BHO wrote it.

You highlighted/bolded the pertinent portion just fine. In addition to the tragedy, it appears that the culprits did not have any empathy for the American people.

"lack of empathy on the part of the attackers" is not he same as how you seem to be reading it as "lack of empathy for the attackers"

Understanding the motivation for the attacks is paramount to mounting a measured response to the attacks, which we tried to do to some extent. Why didn't we nuke all the the middle east in response? Because we had a measured response.

Better than going in guns ablazing would be sniping the head of the beast, no? We better figure out the nature of the beast before we can do that, though.

Oh shoot, he was right, too. We went into Afghanistan (full support by the american public, but then we are squandering our efforts there based on recent events in the area) and then we went into Iraq (wasn't even the right beast)


Regardless, if you want to say he is being apologetic, please point to where he excuses the actions of the attackers. That being the definition of apologetic.
 
He wasn't stating that in reference to how to attack them, he opposed attacking them, he is trying to get people to empathize for the motives of the terrorists. Not necessarily in the specific sentence you are referencing but clearly in the rest of his statements.

In observing the place people come from in their statements you can see what their real perspective are whether or not they realize they are communicating them.

For example, if someone were to say 'when people aren't smart enough to earn their own living there should be a place for them to turn for support in a compassionate government." It reveals that they believe stupidity is a widespread enough problem that it deserves government attention and it reveals that they think government is an answer for people's problems.

Obama's statements reveal he feels that on some level the lives these people led could lead someone to terrorism and that the US is responsible on some level for the condition of that life. It acquits the terrorists of what they really were, radical Islamic Fascists and what they did is completely unacceptable regardless of what life experience you have had.

There is absolutely no rationalizing such behavior.

It's NOT what happens to you but rather WHAT YOU DO ABOUT IT that determines if you get justice or not. Mullahs, not Americans, influenced these men to do what they did.

Obama has revealed an empathy for terrorism.

EDIT TO ADD: Making excuses for the terrible performance of Democrats by saying that the Republicans did X or Y reveals that the person using that argument recognizes Republicans as the standard by which performance is to be measured. Works swapping Democrat and Republican or men and women and so on.......
 
Obama's statements reveal he feels that on some level the lives these people led could lead someone to terrorism. . .

Wow, what a horrible monster

. . .and that the US is responsible on some level for the condition of that life.

No. He doesn't say that.

Here's the ENTIRE quote from the article. The first and third paragraphs are being ignored, thus making the analysis on the second incorrect.

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.

NOT allowing our rage to spill onto innocents isn't a terrorist apology. You guys need to learn to read.
 
Perhaps his concern for the rage spilling out on OUR innocents might have been more at the front of his mind.

You don't seem to be reading either..

Incredible how oftem liberals accuse others of the very flaws they are demonstrating.

His coming from the perspective of feeling compelled to advocate for these folks on some level is what is found to be so offensive. It reveals an empathy for those that spilled thier rage on innocents rather then a condemnation of this tactic.

Quote:
Obama's statements reveal he feels that on some level the lives these people led could lead someone to terrorism. . .

Wow, what a horrible monster

Not a 'monster' as your sarcasm tries to dismiss but more like wrong headedness. Responsible adult people are accountable for the conditions of their own lives. If someone had forced them to commit mas murder while chanting 'ali acbar' that's one thing but they CHOSE to becomme terrorists, the lives they led didn't force it on them. He has revealed that he comes from the perspective that tese people were victums themselves. BS. They were homicidal by choice not compulsion.

Do you ever feel ashamed? Step back for a minute and look at the event we are talking about. Stop campaigning and contemplate the scope what took place.........

How in the world do you empathize with people committing an act like that and attack people that work to prevent it being repeated.........

How in the world did you get to a state where the events that took place that day became passe'. How did anyone get to that state? It takes a reprobate mind to get there.
 
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.
There is nothing wrong with his statement. Especially when taken in context. It is called being humane and considerate. It is called being a thinking person who acts but also thinks about what caused the problem and how it can be prevented instead of just seeking revenge.

I am sorry he can't be a tough talking, yet completely ineffective, cowboy who reacts instead of resolves.

This is just another smear job worthy of any right wing talking head mouthpiece.
It doesn't matter what motivates America's enemies as long as they're dead. Our task is not to change the minds of America's enemies; our task is to make them dead.
Wow. That is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard. I would not want that type of bloodthirsty thinking associated with being an American.
 
Odd....you see humane in one direction and hate on the other. Enlightened shades of gray huh.......

More disturbing is you see those people as deserving of humanity and the President as deserving your evil......
 
Not a 'monster' as your sarcasm tries to dismiss but more like wrong headedness. Responsible adult people are accountable for the conditions of their own lives. If someone had forced them to commit mas murder while chanting 'ali acbar' that's one thing but they CHOSE to becomme terrorists, the lives they led didn't force it on them. He has revealed that he comes from the perspective that tese people were victums themselves. BS. They were homicidal by choice not compulsion.

Do you ever feel ashamed? Step back for a minute and look at the event we are talking about. Stop campaigning and contemplate the scope what took place.........

How in the world do you empathize with people committing an act like that and attack people that work to prevent it being repeated.........

How in the world did you get to a state where the events that took place that day became passe'. How did anyone get to that state? It takes a reprobate mind to get there.

There's quite a stark difference between those that have the power to have empathy even under the most dire of circumstances and those that let blind rage dictate their short term response regardless of long term consequences.

The POINT wasn't to excuse the attackers. It was to indicate that they WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LARGER GROUP they were being identified with.

There is nothing "passe'" about this. It is the ability not to lose one's had in an emergency.

Do you ever even think about the number of innocent Iraqis killed? Talk about shameless.

Liberal? Ha. Pretty unperceptive. Par for the course.
 
The BHO apologist are starting to respond not with facts or direct examples, but with dehumanizing opposition statements ... ever so typical.

This is just another smear job worthy of any right wing talking head mouthpiece

I am sorry he can't be a tough talking, yet completely ineffective, cowboy who reacts instead of resolves

Pray tell, one example of anything legislative BHO has resolved in the more than three years he has held a Senator's seat? Is there a single piece of significant legislation BHO personally sponsored, much less got passed?
 
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

There was nothing wrong with Obama's quoted statement regarding understanding the motivations of such terrorists.

There is plenty wrong with Obama.

Those two statements have no problem standing side by side.
 
The BHO apologist are starting to respond not with facts or direct examples, but with dehumanizing opposition statements ... ever so typical.
Nice try, but throwing around labels and distractions (another tactic worthy of a non-thinking right wing mouthpiece) does not change the fact that his statement was completely valid and logical. Nor does it change the fact that your "out of context" presentation was unfair and biased and without any true merit.

To portray his statement as an "apology to terrorists" is also right out of the neo-com playbook. A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology. No where in the statement does he apologize to anyone and the blatant dishonesty in your portraying it as such is apparent.

You are basically saying it is a bad thing for him to say if the people are starving and they resort to stealing and harming others for food we need to punish them, but we also need to understand why they did it and try to prevent it in the future so we are not constantly on the defense against desperate and hungry hordes of people with nothing to loose.

Your perspective is very skewed and you are just looking for something to take out of context and run with it. At least I hope that is the case. I hope no one would actually believe in that "kill them all and let god sort them out" mentality that would be required to find his statements offensive.

Also, to try and portray his compassion for innocent civilians as a bad thing simply because they are of a foreign land is revolting. If you can't handle someone pointing out that fact maybe you should start considering your propaganda a little better before posting it.
 
Obama is partially right, but I think he either misses or dodges the true point. Many of the people who are recruited into these terrorist organizations do come from horrible areas of extreme poverty and violence. Often, they join such organizations because they've been promised great rewards: be it worldly goods, a favorable afterlife, or care and protection for their families. So, in that respect Obama is correct that some of it stems from poverty and desperation.

However, what he fails to mention is the leaders of such movements for whom I have no sympathy. These evil people indoctrinate their people with hate and violence for, I believe, the sole purpose of control and greed. I think that part of the reason there is such great anti-western sentiment in the Middle East is because the leaders of many of these countries are afraid that their people will see what freedom really is and will then no longer be controllable. Others, such as Bin Laden, find leading terrorist organizations to give them control that they wouldn't otherwise have. They use the same tactic that Hitler did: control the people through unity against a common enemy. We are an easy target because we are prosperous (jealousy is an easy emotion to manipulate) and because many of the things that are permitted and sometimes even encouraged in our country contradict the values (the teachings of Islam) of the majority of people in that region. By controlling what glimpses of America their people are allowed to see, they are able to influence their peoples opinions of us. I would imagine that if the only exposure to American culture that someone raised in an Islamic country ever had was MTV it would be quite likely that we'd be viewed as decadent, immoral pigs.

The other thing that Obama fails to mention is this: the motivation for such actions does not justify them. Regardless of the horrid circumstances that these people may live in, I refuse to believe that all of them are psychotic (afterall, a true psychotic is someone who cannot feel empathy for another human being). I firmly believe that deep down, every sane person has the ability to distinguish between good and evil. I cannot fathom how anyone who is capable of making that distinction could possibly label the murder of innocent people as good. Because I think it's probable that most of the people who carry out such acts know deep down that they're doing evil things I think that they can be held accountable for them.
 
However, what he fails to mention is the leaders of such movements for whom I have no sympathy. These evil people indoctrinate their people with hate and violence for, I believe, the sole purpose of control and greed. I think that part of the reason there is such great anti-western sentiment in the Middle East is because the leaders of many of these countries are afraid that their people will see what freedom really is and will then no longer be controllable.
Yup, the leaders that pervert religion just to maintain power over a people that have every reason to overthrow them. Keeping them hungry, frustrated, hatefilled, and afraid is their only chance to maintain power. This is why I am so opposed to religion in government and manipulative tactics like were used after 9/11.
The other thing that Obama fails to mention is this: the motivation for such actions does not justify them.
He does not say it does. He simply states you have to understand motivation to fight an enemy. Anyone that has any military or LE experience would never argue with that at all.
 
Oh, I get it ...

.



But, why do the Obama apologist continue to rant so vehemently?



Nor does it change the fact that your "out of context" presentation was unfair and biased and without any true merit.
Once again, they are BHO's written and published words ... not mine.


To portray his statement as an "apology to terrorists" is also right out of the neo-com playbook.
I never read the book you refer to. Perhaps you could lend me your copy? A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology.


You are basically saying it is a bad thing for him to say if the people are starving and they resort to stealing and harming others for food
Not me. Nowhere have I used the words starving, resort, stealing, harming, for food. They are your words sir and you should really try little harder to "pin the tail on the donkey".


Your perspective is very skewed and you are just looking for something to take out of context and run with it. At least I hope that is the case.
Well ... your hope is forlorn. You might want to take time to read this thread from the beginning to the end. Your characterizations are misguided and without substance.


Also, to try and portray his compassion for innocent civilians as a bad thing simply because they are of a foreign land is revolting.
Where did this revelation come from? Not me sir, again ...it is your words. "Revolting"? I hope you don't hurl all over your screen. It could all get rather messy.

As far as "foreigners", you are so misguided PBP and without a modicum of fact in support of your supposition. I'm married to a "foreigner", I've traveled a great deal of the world and all three of my children enjoy dual citizenship. It is pure conjecture on your part to link all foreigners to all Islamic Terrorist. Very strange indeed you would write such dribble.


If you can't handle someone pointing out that fact maybe you should start considering your propaganda a little better before posting it.
Seems as though it is working just fine, although I take umbrage with your use of the word "propaganda". I am not a professional political theorist or essayist and I state my opinions as I see them as a private citizen... "misguided" as they are. This is a free and open political forum is it not, or has the First Amendment been suspended by BHO and you too?

On the other hand, are there any BHO supporters who can cite a single piece of significant legislation he has initiated, sponsored or passed? I pose the question for a second time.

It appears BHO supporters (note I did not use the word "apologist". I guess I'm slowly adapting.) rely on emotion and irrational behavior in support of the chosen one.

Facts, substance and reality pale in the light of his presumptive coronation.




.
 
"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."

He's right that lack of "empathy" is a factor in brutality and violence; what he fails to grasp, it seems, is that such a lack is endemic to human nature and more common than uncommon. We struggle to be free, to be rational, to be kind, to be farsighted, to cooperate, to trust beyond our clan or tribe. It doesn't come naturally. Obtuseness is a given, and we'd better be realistic about that.
 
Back To Square One ...

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."


This was BHO first written and published response to the 9/11 attack by Islamic Extremist Terrorist. Is this something you would write to your local newspaper eight days after the most heinous crime on American soil?

It is an apologetic explanation for the cause and effect of a criminal action against American citizens from BHO's socialist viewpoint. Nothing less and nothing more.
 
But, why do the Obama apologist continue to rant so vehemently?
Why do neo-con mouthpieces resort to name calling and labeling to distract from the weakness and dishonesty of their message?
Once again, they are BHO's written and published words ... not mine.
Words that you chose a small snippet from and posted put of context and then assigned false context and meaning to...very shady tactics that wreak of desperation.
I never read the book you refer to. Perhaps you could lend me your copy? A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology.
Really? Then it must just come natural to some people. Where in any part of his statement (which you posted out of context) does he ever truly apologize? I must have missed the "I'm sorry."
Not me. Nowhere have I used the words starving, resort, stealing, harming, for food. They are your words sir and you should really try little harder to "pin the tail on the donkey".
I guess understanding metaphor is beyond some people also. His words/ideas where sound and part of any tacticians playbook.
Well ... your hope is forlorn. You might want to take time to read this thread from the beginning to the end. Your characterizations are misguided and without substance.
Once again...really? Maybe you should read your own posts in this thread. There is really nothing that was said that means what you imply nor anything that is beyond the scope of good tactical thinking.

How much LE and mitlitary experience do you have? Have you never heard the philosophy of "know your enemy like you know yourself?" Have you never heard preemptive battle strategy? Such as learning the needs and issues of foreign citizens and trying to address those needs by building roads, providing clean water, building shelters, providing food, etc to prevent citizen involvement in future conflicts and to diminish recruitment capabilities of extremists. Perhaps you misrepresent Obama's statements because you simply do not understand them.
Where did this revelation come from? Not me sir, again ...it is your words. "Revolting"? I hope you don't hurl all over your screen. It could all get rather messy.
This was in reference to your labeling me an apologist for stating that some of the responses on here called for all of out enemies to be killed wholesale. You are no the only person I was responding to in the post you chose to attack me on.

But since you want to bring it up...you seem fond of the words ISLAMIC terrorist. You also call Obama in question with references to his past ISLAMIC connection. Do you have a problem with terrorists...or just islamic ones? Do you have a problem with poitical positions, or just positions of politicians you perceive to have islamic ties?
On the other hand, are there any BHO supporters who can cite a single piece of significant legislation he has initiated, sponsored or passed? I pose the question for a second time.
Cite some significant achievements from the last seven years of the Bush administration. Especially the first year and a half.
 
PS: I will be on the old Blackberry for most of the next couple days so I may not be back to L&P for a bit. The long posts get confusing on the small screen. Everyone please talk amongst yourselves. I will give you a topic. :D

When taking into account the tactical reality of the importance of understanding the plights of the people of a foreign enemy, how does one condemn Obama's statements?
 
The BHO apologist are starting to respond not with facts or direct examples, but with dehumanizing opposition statements ... ever so typical.

Ah, another page from the neo-con playbook: take your worst fault and accuse others of having it.

Obama's statements don't need any further defense. In response you have only come back with "is too, is too, is too" acting like our petulant president. You have made up your mind and are fitting the facts around it.
 
Back
Top