Patterico's Pontifications

1/6/2009

Al Qaeda: Gaza is “Obama’s Gift to Israel”

Filed under: International,Obama,Terrorism,War — DRJ @ 7:07 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri today denounced Barack Obama for failing to support Palestinians in Gaza against the Israelis:

“In the comments, which were posted on a militant Web site and obtained by the SITE Monitoring Service, al-Zawahiri described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “crusade against Islam and Muslims” and called it “Obama’s gift to Israel” before he takes office later this month.

This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America,” al-Zawahiri said, according to SITE. “He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection.”

This isn’t the first time al-Zawahiri has taunted Obama. In mid-November he criticized Obama’s position on Afghanistan and likened Obama, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice to ‘house slaves,’ Malcolm X’s term for blacks who are subservient to whites.

I wish Obama could smooth troubled waters as his followers hope, but I wonder if his abandonment of his Muslim heritage may actually increase antagonism in the Middle East. Obama is the son of a Muslim and an atheist, but is now a Christian and sometimes friend of the Jews. That background isn’t a problem for most Americans, but it may not be as easy for some cultures to accept.

— DRJ

29 Responses to “Al Qaeda: Gaza is “Obama’s Gift to Israel””

  1. Since Obama is technically a Muslim apostate, doesn’t that put him under the death penalty as far as the hardcore Muslims are concerned?

    After all, he was technically Muslim when he was a kid, but converted to Christianity as an adult. Doesn’t the Qu’ran say such people should be decapitated?

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  2. Sounds like Ayman wants his campaign contribution back. A Christian? Barack? Um, okay.

    Chris (ce5d67)

  3. I wonder if his Muslim heritage may actually increase antagonism in the Middle East.

    DRJ, that point was raised back in May in a NYT op-ed piece by Edward Luttwak:

    As the son of the Muslim father, [President-Elect] Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as [President-Elect] Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.

    Of course, as most Americans understand it, [President-Elect] Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

    His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

    It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if such is al-Zawahiri’s motivation for taunting Obama.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (43e430)

  4. Steven Den Beste,

    I think it would and, if so, that makes him an even greater target. It’s a sad and frightening thought.

    DRJ (345e40)

  5. Paul,

    Thanks for the link. It’s very interesting and it makes me feel sorry for the Secret Service.

    Maybe I should read the NY Times more. Then again, maybe not.

    DRJ (345e40)

  6. Then again, maybe not.

    Heh.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (43e430)

  7. …American machine of lies…

    I’m surprised al-Zawahiri is so familiar with the DNC. Who knew?

    Dana (137151)

  8. I wish Obama could smooth troubled waters as his followers hope, but I wonder if his abandonment of his Muslim heritage may actually increase antagonism in the Middle East.

    Islamic terrorist have never had a problem with motivation. They will certainly add this excuse to their rhetoric, not because they need to, but because it is there…

    (apologies to George Mallory)

    Pons Asinorum (5fa803)

  9. His first state visit to Saudi Arabia should be interesting. (Of course, they’ve been smiling and accepting strange things from us for a long time, like Condi Rice.)

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  10. A side question would be how are the US radicals and leftists going to handle it when their favorite insurgents and resistance leaders keep banging on the Chosen One? That’s some major diss-o-nance.

    allan (c5d8a2)

  11. I want a refund. We were to have RESPECT IN THE WORLD by electing Obama. Damn, next they’ll tell us that unicorns don’t excrete Skittles.

    HatlessHessian (9e1983)

  12. I hope that Islamic Outrage, Inc. continues to use the dangling cigarette image of Obama in their protest posters. It’s the best one since Evil Bert appeared with bin Laden on the protest posters in Bangladesh.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  13. That’s some major diss-o-nance.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people. They all deserve one another.

    Incidentally, the Islamic religion, based on the history of Mohammed, does have at its roots the unbridled warriorism — the shoot-the-enemy mentality — of its founder. By contrast, the teachings of Christ — and Christ himself — cannot be characterized as having flat-out warrior-like, battle-hardened tendencies.

    Again, the idiocy of socio-political leftism (or “progressivism”) throughout the Western World in the 21st Century and the theology and history of the Islamic faith deserve one another. Truly an odd couple, and a match made in, uh, well, heaven.

    Mark (411533)

  14. December 2007:

    What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

    Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

    How’s that workin’ out so far, Andi?

    Karl (2491e1)

  15. Poor Sully just can’t catch a break.

    AD (4f3c82)

  16. Comment #11 nails it. The end result of all this will be the slow realization by the non-thinking masses that Yes Indeed, Virginia, he is NOTHING more than a standard-issue politician — albeit, one in a smooth-talking slick package.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  17. That’s funny — I thought that Sully was used to being the ‘catcher’.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  18. You know where Obama’s face is?

    On protest masks in Indonesia.

    How’s that workin’ out so far, Andi?

    Karl (2491e1)

  19. I have an uneasy feeling that somebody’s going to assassinate Obama — or is that just another unwarranted comparison to JFK? If you look at the 4 US presidents that have been assassinated, 2 were killed by left-wing radicals (McKinley in 1901 by and anarchist and JFK in 1963 by a communist sympathizer – excluding conspiracy theories). Garfield in 1881 was killed by a disgruntled supporter. Only Lincoln was killed by what would be considered a right-wing nut.

    Let’s see – left wing radicals, communist sympathizers, and disgruntled supporters — Obama has all of those in his camp.

    Mark Turner (92a4c4)

  20. Only Lincoln was killed by what would be considered a right-wing nut.

    No, he was killed by a man who was pissed off for the south losing…

    Booth was a Democrat.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  21. Steven Den Beste –

    You are correct, and I think that radical Islamists would relish the opportunity to take credit for killing an “apostate” who is also President of the United States!

    Mark Turner (c6b144)

  22. I wonder what would be left of the Democrat party if Obama got Homicide Bombed by a Palestianian sympathizer affiliated with Al Qaeda?

    Hey, Leon, How come your CIA didn’t catch that one?

    PCD (7fe637)

  23. First and foremost, I DO NOT CONDONE assassination attempts against any US President. Let’s be clear and up-front about that. Any who attempt to assassinate POTUS should consider his or her life forfeit. And it should be made so.

    Now, with Obama’s “apostate” standing among the Islamic world, the level of threat against him is greatly increased. By several orders of richter-scale-like magnitude. Not only does he have to fear left-wing nutjobs, right-wing nutjobs, and “make me famous” nutjobs, he also has to fear Islamic terrorists and other Islamists who wish to fulfill the Quran. Of course, “fear” is not necessarily the best operative word, but it is indeed fitting.

    He is actually among the worst possible options for handling the extremist Islamists of the world. “I used to be Islamic, like you” will only serve to remind the Islamists they don’t actually have to negotiate in good faith because he is, after all, “apostate.” So, they can make a deal with him at 11am and break the deal at 1pm without actually violating any principles. Not that the Islamo-terrorists are concerned with things like “my word is my bond” or anything, but even so, they will be that much more free to ignore their oaths.

    It never ceases to amaze me the depths of naivete we, as Americans, are willing to sink to (bad grammar, good flow) when considering the nature of others. It reminds me of a line in the movie Girlfight, a movie I strongly reccomend, by the way. When Diana Guzman gets busted for fighting in school, the administrator who chastises her says something along the lines of “Have you EVER considered talking things out?” The whole thrust of the administrator’s chastisement was “Fighting is never the answer, but talking is.” This is the foolishness propegated by many well-intentioned but forcefully naive people.

    In short (too late), is it truly any surprise that an Islamo-terrorist would berate Obama or use him to whip up the masses?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  24. Given all the hateful venom spewed about George Bush by the fever swamp left, surely the Secret Service has been doing a good job of protection. But how come nothing was done about skanky ho randi rhodes’ assassination talk of Bush?

    Reagan and Ford survived attempts on their lifves. So now we are supposed to make it a bigger deal if there are threats on Obama. He didn’t need to be Potus to be a target, according to Mrs. Jug-ears. It was enough that being black at the gas station was enough for him to be killed. Of course that black killing squad duo in DC area mostly shot at whitey, eh?

    One recalls that there was that “curse” of every twenty years when a President was assassinated. Somehow it hasn’t worked since JFK. I’de be more concerned about a wmd attack by al qaeda killing oodles of fellow American citizens. W gets little credit for protecting American lives. Of course there is the death toll of American service men and women. But few admit that more people are murdered in various big American cities. A liberal aquaintance says all the killing is because of the male mindset. Doesn’t agree that women and their precious ownership of their own bodies account for more deaths by abortion EACH day than GIs were killed in Iraq in toto. Yes, women are so compassionate.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  25. But how come nothing was done about skanky ho randi rhodes’ assassination talk of Bush?

    I’m going to assume that to be a rhetorical question…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  26. but I wonder if his abandonment of his Muslim heritage may actually increase antagonism in the Middle East.

    It will be nothing more than another in a long list of convenient excuses for them to continue hating us – but it will have one salutary effect; those that have screeched about Bush causing all of this will finally be forced to confront the truth of the matter. Anti – Americanism is as old as the hills, and the only thing we can hope for is the respect (and sometimes the fear) of the world, but not their love.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  27. 25 Oh yeah, let Scott Jacobs emulate that particular hate speech and see if he doesn’t get a visit from the authorities.

    As far as the Muslim world and their religion of peace bullcrap, why should we give a fiddler’s feck what the arab street, the world in general, the highly ethical UN or Euroweenies mutants think of us? Seriously, why does the left always worry about the Kumbaya world view? Why do we even buy into the UN idea with our disportionate contributions? Let them relocate to Zimbabwe, Somalia, Havana, Caracas or even Gaza. Sell that UN real estate in NYC.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  28. Oh yeah, let Scott Jacobs emulate that particular hate speech and see if he doesn’t get a visit from the authorities.

    Close.

    “Let anyone who isn’t a liberal emulate that particular hate speech and see if he doesn’t get a visit from the authorities.”

    That is far more accurate…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  29. I’m sure you prefer fear, Dmac.

    David Ehrenstein (ca6f57)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2916 secs.