Al Qaeda Calls Obama "House Negro"

[RBS]

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 25, 2009; Page A01

Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader took stock of America's new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. "A house Negro," Ayman al-Zawahiri said.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a "hypocrite," a "killer" of innocents, an "enemy of Muslims." He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

"He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection," an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda's skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
ad_icon

With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.

Whether the pro-Obama sentiment will last remains to be seen. On Friday, the new administration signaled that it intends to continue at least one of Bush's controversial counterterrorism policies: allowing CIA missile strikes on alleged terrorist hideouts in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region.

But for now, the change in Washington appears to have rattled al-Qaeda's leaders, some of whom are scrambling to convince the faithful that Obama and Bush are essentially the same.

"They're highly uncertain about what they're getting in this new adversary," said Paul Pillar, a former CIA counterterrorism official who lectures on national security at Georgetown University. "For al-Qaeda, as a matter of image and tone, George W. Bush had been a near-perfect foil."

Al-Qaeda's rhetorical swipes at Obama date to the weeks before the election, when commentators on Web sites associated with the group debated which of the two major presidential candidates would be better for the jihadist movement. While opinions differed, a consensus view supported Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the man most likely to continue Bush administration policies and, it was hoped, drive the United States more deeply into a prolonged guerrilla war.

Soon after the vote, the attacks turned personal -- and insulting. In his Nov. 16 video message, Zawahiri denounced Obama as "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" such as Malcolm X. He then used the term "house Negro," implying that Obama is merely a servant carrying out the orders of powerful whites.

Since then, as Obama has begun moving to reverse controversial Bush administration policies, the verbal attacks have become sharper, more frequent and more clearly aimed at Muslim audiences.

On Jan. 6, Zawahiri issued a message calling for a global jihad by Muslims to counter Israel's military campaign in Gaza. He then sought to frame the Israeli assault as a "link in the chain of the crusade against Islam and Muslims," with then-President-elect Obama at the head of the chain.



This is the best they can come up with? Calling the President a stupid name? This'll rally the troops.
And please, don't anyone take offense at the subject title, okay?

[Dr Dave]

See, this is the beauty part of being President of the US and having "Hussein" as your middle name. Al Qaeda has to crank up the noise machine extra, extra loud to proclaim you a bad guy.

[Scott Dolan]

I don't agree with that.

All they have to do is paint him as a Muslim apostate.

That will be easy.

[Sergio Zamora]

Obama should respond with a mama joke.

[rollhead]

Don't worry, he soon will be pulling out his kneepads again and sucking AIPAC cock. That will get the Muslims riled up in ernest.

[steve(thelil)]

Calling the man with arguably the most powerful position on earth a "house Negro" doesn't exactly resonate with accuracy.

Who's the massa? The electorate?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by steve(thelil)

Who's the massa? The electorate?

Well, yes, just as they should be in a Democracy.
The President is elected to speak for the people who elected him.
But, he represents the electorate, or at least he is supposed to, which is why I was so incensed when President Bush went against the will of the people, not just Americans, but internationally, when he decided on his own, to invade Iraq.
He was then carrying out the wishes of a tiny segment of the electorate, which means he was not doing the job he was elected to do, represent the majority.

[Pete C]

I thought they said that months ago. Or was that Ahmedinejad? Or Nader?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by patricia

But, he represents the electorate, or at least he is supposed to, which is why I was so incensed when President Bush went against the will of the people, not just Americans, but internationally, when he decided on his own, to invade Iraq.

*sigh*

So, am I allowed to call this a lie?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9659C8B63


"The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council."

[Scott Dolan]

Somebody may want to clue particia in on the fact that 55% is indeed a majority.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Don't worry, he soon will be pulling out his kneepads again and sucking AIPAC cock. That will get the Muslims riled up in ernest.

Gee, Rollie, you might just rile up a few Jews, too.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Gee, Rollie, you might just rile up a few Jews, too.

They're already riled up; just look at Gaza.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

*sigh*

So, am I allowed to call this a lie?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9659C8B63


"The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council."

People held that opinion based on a lie. Kinda takes the shine off it, you ask me.

[groover]

Obama undermines much of their rhetoric simply by who he is, as he does for all critics of American society. They really have to come up with a new act, or they're not going to sell many tickets.

He supports Israel because he thinks it's the right thing to do, not because AIPAC owns him, and no matter how much it pisses off the hard left.

Obama's not working for the Man, he is the Man!

[patricia]

Originally Posted by groover

Obama's not working for the Man, he is the Man!

And that really is the bottom line. He may want to have a consensus, genuine bi-partisanship.
But giving the other side a voice does not mean that he is going to let them tell him what to do and he will do it, just so they will like him.
Unlike the previous administration, it appears that the Obama administration really does want input from both sides. That should not be confused with capitulation to their wishes.
As Obama, and others now, have said, We Won.

[claude]

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

People held that opinion based on a lie. Kinda takes the shine off it, you ask me.

Doesn't make what particia said correct, though. Does it?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Doesn't make what particia said correct, though. Does it?

No, it doesn't make her correct, but so what?

Hey, aren't you the guy who has no patience for "semantics"? What is the point of citing "the will of the people" when the people base their opinion on a lie?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Gee, Rollie, you might just rile up a few Jews, too.

That is fine with me, GG, one form of religious tyranny is no better than another in my book.

The fact that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in the campaign that she would resort to nuclear war in defense of a group of unbending religious fanatics who are fighting an eternal war with another group of unbending religious fanatics wasn't particularly virtuous in my book, nor was Obama's unwillingness to let Clinton out trump him in his zealotry to defend Israel, which appears will be voting for Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, who would let Jewish settlements expand in the West Bank.

This would destroy any possibility of a two-state settlement (if it was ever possible to begin with).

Israel seems well on its way to instituting apartheid in Palestine , and I am beginning to see the wisdom of Naomi Klein's call for a global boycott of Israel, similar the SA apartheid boycott. America shouldn't be part of the Israeli effort to drive Palestinians into the sea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...boycott-israel

So, if a few Jews get riled up with me, so be it. I don't care, anymore than I would care that South African apartheid nuts get riled up at me.

Unbending loyalty to Israel puts American security at risk. I am an American and the security of my family and community comes first.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

No, it doesn't make her correct, but so what?

Hey, aren't you the guy who has no patience for "semantics"? What is the point of citing "the will of the people" when the people base their opinion on a lie?

Unfortunately, the war was still quite popular amongst the American people once the WMD falacy became apparent.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by patricia

As Obama, and others now, have been quoted as saying, We Won.

Actually, the quote was, "I won." There is a big difference.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Actually, the quote was, "I won." There is a big difference.

You're right and I know that. I paraphrased, instead of quoting.
OOPS.
I guess that once again, as Scott may have said, I don't know, I lied.

So, in the interest of accuracy, I've changed the line to read, "Obama and others have said that We Won
Obama's original commet was, as you correctly quoted "I won"
Is that better, or do you still not understand the point of my comment?

[Scott Dolan]

particia lied and nobody died!

[groover]

Originally Posted by rollhead

I am an American and the security of my family and community comes first.

If security interests trump morality for you, rollhead, you are more like Netanyahu than you think.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Israel seems well on its way to instituting apartheid in Palestine , and I am beginning to see the wisdom of Naomi Klein's call for a global boycott of Israel, similar the SA apartheid boycott. America shouldn't be part of the Israeli effort to drive Palestinians into the sea...Unbending loyalty to Israel puts American security at risk. I am an American and the security of my family and community comes first.

On it's way to instituting apartheid? Israel long ago arrived at that point. What's happening now is more akin to genocide, since in the end I think Israel would love to simply wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth.

It will take a president with big balls to put an end to the madness that is our unstinting coddling of this "ally." I don't see it happening anytime soon, though maybe Obama will surprise us.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Paul B

What's happening now is more akin to genocide, since in the end I think Israel would love to simply wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth.

The converse is equally true, though there are enough Palestinians and Jews living outside that area that it wouldn't really be utter genocide in either case.

[Al in NYC]

In what way are Israel's actions in Gaza defensible as anything like "moral"?

You stick people in a fenced off ghetto, deny them movement and basic supplies, and when they put up a little resistance you bomb them and shoot them like fish in a barrel, killing hundreds. All in service of political positioning in an increasingly religio-fanatic domestic politics.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

In what way are Israel's actions in Gaza defensible as anything like "moral"?

Depends on your morals. Law of the jungle, kill or be killed. Just like rollhead, the security of family and community trump objective morality for some.

[Al in NYC]

"Kill or be killed" give me a break. One of the greatest armed powers on Earth, backed by the might and money of the most powerful force the world has ever seen, vs. the mostly extremely poor people they have trapped and are trying to starve out of existence. Some damn jungle.

[groover]

But every time the Israelis ease up on them, they use the opportunity to attempt to kill. Trying to destroy their offensive capability with the minimum loss of life is the most moral option, short of martyrdom. A preferable solution would be to destroy the Gazans offensive means in a non-lethal way, but is it that possible?