Terrorism: Obama’s Language Suggests Bad News For America’s Security

By
January 22, 2009

Update: More on al Qaeda's worldview, perhaps lost on our sitting administration.

Do you believe that Al Qaeda and its affiliates are intelligent purposeful beings with an agenda that differs tragically from that of Western Democracies? Or that they are simply a bunch of uninformed ignoramuses who don't take time to think?

It's important because Obama chose the language of the liberal elitist to address terrorism today. That myopic view fails to truly understand their mindset and radical ideology, somehow believing that everyone would just be "good people" if only given the chance and information.

"It is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence that we see emanating from terrorist organizationsaround the world," Obama said.

You can call the terrorists behind 9/11 and many other attacks many things. But you cannot call them "unthinking" unless you are under the dangerously flawed assumption that, all things being equal, they would think and behave just as we do in the West.

This is the language that leads to weakness, appeasement and negotiation with an enemy bent on your destruction and interested only in manipulating any and every process they can to their advantage.

We can have any policy we choose on Guantanamo. In the end, I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference. But a President who does not understand the radical terrorist mindset in these perilous times is not a good thing for America's security and well being.

They don't want what we want because they think differently, not because they are "unthinking."

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Lala (shill for Dan) says:

    Yeah, I read that and the first thing I thought about was all the bleeding-heart liberals who caused the crime rate to sky-rocket from the 60s onward because they “felt sorry” for the poor, misunderstood criminals.

  2. SacTownMan says:

    George Bush had 7 years of keeping these monsters at bay! Hey did everything in his power to stop their attacks after 9/11 and succeeded in keeping my family safe.
    He has a sense of decency that is simply lost on the Moonbats!
    Barry and his handlers are more concerned about his image and implementing his leftist agenda than about the safety of my family!
    American’s expect for him to do his job and continue the success of GWB in keeping our country out of harms way. I have very little confidence in his ability to do so. I pray for the great country that so foolishly allowed these defeatists to gain control over our safety.
    Prove me wrong Barry!

  3. Lala (shill for Dan) says:

    Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, they say. Talk is that she is a conservative Dem and a member of the NRA

  4. mark l. says:

    terrorism is changing as we speak.
    it’s failed in Egypt(Sadat) the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, 9/11, Iraq, and finally Afghanistan. The motivation was to rally the Muslim world to the ’cause’ of fending off western influence. Given the spate of failures, especially in regard to the rallying of the muslim countries, it is only a matter of time before they make their final metamorphisis.
    terrorism with the motivating factor of pure nihilism.
    I can’t wait to hear obama try and talk them down, or try to explain why.

  5. ET says:

    The “closing” of Gitmo is purely symbolic, if and when it ever happens.
    “So in the end we’d have essentially the same legal system, extremely dangerous prisoners on U.S. soil, and the same complaints from the civil liberties lobby. This is a peculiar type of change indeed, one attuned to the elusive and subjective feelings of “world opinion,” and the liberal attorneys now populating the Justice Department. But in this new moral equation we actually don’t treat the detainees any differently. We just move them. (I can only imagine what it will do for housing prices in those locales.) There is an exquisite degree of hypocrisy at work and a lack of appreciation for what really matters — the safety of our own citizens.
    Let’s hope that on further reflection the Obama team comes to the conclusion that the Bush administration’s approach to these issues are better than the alternatives.”
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/51631

  6. A Logical American says:

    The failure of the new administration to correctly discern and judge character is called “projection bias” but with a new twist, that of enduing people with the person’s own positive wishes or desires. The current mindset refuses to allow that people could actually be evil, and to defend this viewpoint of inherent goodness, argues that actors are simply misunderstood or frustrated. This behavior or refusal to recognize the actual truth is called denial.
    For denial to be evidenced so soon in such a high office bodes no real good for anyone, I am sorry to say, as the responsibilities of the office require objectivity of the highest caliber, not the wishful thinking of someone partially blind to reality.

  7. syn says:

    “This behavior or refusal to recognize the actual truth is called denial.”
    Which brings to mind the creepy entertainers ‘pledging to serve Obama’ yet acting as though they are free spirits transcending chains which bind the soul of humanity.
    The reality is, one attack on American soil and it is over for the President.

  8. Terry Gain says:

    “it’s failed in Egypt(Sadat) the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, 9/11, Iraq, and finally Afghanistan. The motivation was to rally the Muslim world to the ’cause’ of fending off western influence. Given the spate of failures, especially in regard to the rallying of the muslim countries, it is only a matter of time before they make their final metamorphisis.”
    Islamic terrorism didn’t fail in Iraq. It was defeated. Announcing the closing of Gitmo with no clue what to do with these jihadists is nothing more than symbolic Bush bashing. It’s the only thing Democrats are good at.
    Keeping terrorists under lock and key until their war on civilization is over offends Obama’s vaunted values but ripping fetae from wombs bothers him not a bit. His values suck.
    When does the investigation begin into the AVS-disabling credit card campaign contributions fraud? Obama’s values suck.

  9. Kat says:

    One would wonder why he is so concerned with terrorist’s rights and why his first or one of his first calls was to Abbas. Maybe that childhood education has left a soft spot in his heart for Islam. I’m just ‘speaking truth to power’.

  10. Fred Beloit says:

    Here is one bit of good news on this subject:
    ““Once again America’s moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership. We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: war on terror, sectarian division and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.”
    So for now, Obama is in favor of the phrase, “war on terror.”
    – Jon Ward, White House reporter, The Washington Times”

  11. Fred Beloit says:

    PAYING THE COST TO BE THE BOSS (B.B. King)
    How dare they ask the first really transparent Pres a tough question? They are supposed to be his supporters. That’s why he went there to schmooze and give them that tickle in their thighs. From Politico:
    “President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.
    Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.
    “Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

  12. Fred Beloit says:

    “If I can’t choose my company when I come in, I’m not gonna come in here any more.”
    Lloyd Bridges in High New, recreated by POTUS Obama

  13. Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

    Oh dear. The wingnuts are upset about President Barack Obama’s decision as commander in chief / unitary executive. Tell me, wingnuts, what intel do you have that President Barack Obama does not have?

  14. Fred Beloit says:

    High Noon, ah say High Noon, son.

  15. Fred Beloit says:

    Totally, you are babbling again. Could you rephrase the question in a way that would relate it to something said above?

  16. Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

    Sure, Fwed. I’ll adjust my question so that even you can understand it: what intel do YOU have that President Barack Obama, as the commander in chief of our nation’s military / unitary executive of the, er um, executive branch as deliniated by Art. II of the United States Constitution, DOES NOT have, with respect to Gitmo and the detainees contained therein.
    Oops, that question might require you to provide something of substantive fact rather than amusing quips and/or wisdom from Rush the Junkie Limbaugh.
    Because conservatives are very serious and learned in the ways of national security, and never play politics with the same, I am certain that this should be an easy question and I shall come away quite enlightened and awed by your serious seriousness.

  17. Fred Beloit says:

    Totally, what do you think of Obama’s apparent idea that the WH press corps are there to hang with and press the flesh with? “Hi, guys and sweeties, anybody want to shoot some hoops?”

  18. Totally Heterosexual Conservative says:

    I’m surprised that Fwed, having no answer to my question pertinent to the topic, chose instead to invent an irrelevant question instead.
    Now watch this drive.

  19. Lala (shill for Dan) says:

    Fred,
    You left out the best part about Obama’s interaction with the reporter from Politico
    “Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter’s shoulder and staring him in the eye.”
    Sounds like Obama is trying to be intimidating, no?

  20. Fred Beloit says:

    Hmmm (Fred gets very serious) “unitary executive”, weighty, very weighty. But in English the word executive denotes unitary, that is, one. Executives, I recall, means more than one. In addition, I’m afraid Limbaugh has nothing whatever to do with my comments.
    Now concerning the question about info we (froggie and I) have that Obama doesn’t have.. isn’t this the same kind of question you moonbats were asked about Bush. You must remember, “Bush lied, people died.” What info did YOU have that Bush did NOT have about Iraq WMD not existing?

  21. Fred Beloit says:

    Yes, Lala, intimidation as a tool is on the belt of every Chicago pol.

  22. Fred Beloit says:

    I forgot. Now watch as Totally starts to “drive”…toward the basket to make a lay up. What do I mean? I don’t know any better than what he means.

  23. Fred Beloit says:

    Anyhow, if the Pres can’t handle the heat, he ought to stop bragging about being a chef and hanging around near the oven. In other words thin skin on a President is not an enviable quality and could cause him trouble down the line.

  24. SacTownMan says:

    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world-middleeast/20090123/ML.Yemen.Al.Qaida/
    Seems that when you do let these killers loose they start hanging around with the wrong crowd again!
    What will you do with these little “sweethearts” Barry?

  25. SacTownMan says:

    Hey Fred
    I’m enjoying your dialogue with the THC Abuser. Isn’t he just a little Harpo Mini-Me. Obviously they were both cloned from a hemorrhoid.
    Poster children for using birth control and as worthless as tits on a boar the both of them!

  26. WAHOO WILLIE says:

    “What will you do with these little “sweethearts” Barry?”
    Harry Reid wants to take them all back to his district……..Apparently Nevadans have no say so in the matter.

  27. Fred Beloit says:

    “Obviously they were both cloned from a hemorrhoid.” I take your comment as a scientific observation, Sac. From the symptoms presented, the anomaly may be identified.
    “Harry Reid wants to take them all back to his district…”
    It’s a war, Wahoo. Murtha wants them too.