is Obama a House Negro?
 

carrying on from the obama being a target for anti americans thread...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2008-us...mericans.html?

as i predicted, Obama has become the target of Islamists. a few days ago Al Qaeda no. 2 released a video calling Obama a house negro. Zawahiri took the term made popular by Malcolm X and used it to slur obama.

what i find amusing is that Al Qaeda is actually calling Obama out. or are they? what do you think of what zawahiri said? is it just a message to show that Al Qaeda is against anything american? is it a personal slur against Obama himself? will the slur have any effect on Obama or his policies?

personally, it wont change a thing, except to highlight to the world that Al Qaeda remains anti american to the core.

your thoughts?

My knee-jerk reaction was that Al Qaeda needs to get a friggin' life. If America wasn't conveniently available for them to hate, then I'm sure they'd be hating on another country, because why not? What else is there for them to do? What else gives them a reason for existence? They don't know how to function without an enemy. So I say fuck 'em, and whatever they say about Obama.

I'd much rather they call Obama a house negro than blow up more buildings.

It's certainly not classy, but terrorism generally isn't.

it's never been clear to me what the group is apart from the fact that the "war on terror" structurally required them to exist and they, assuming they're more than a few guys scurrying about western pakistan stopping from time to time to produce snippy videos, require the "war on terror" as a platform for publicity. but like any fading star, i think al-qeada is worried----they're worried about sinking back into being a few guys scurrying about the mountains of western pakistan rather than being the Big Scary Phantom they have been now that the bush administration, which has been so important for the Al-Qeada (tm) Brand and the Marketing that has Maintained and Expanded it are soon to be a thing of the past.

Calling our President-elect a "house negro" is obviously inflammatory and was designed to incite an emotional if not irrational response. I think we all should just ignore it. And I wish this Al Qaeda video would've gotten no press coverage whatsoever.

I think it's interesting how convienient this video is for the people who benefit from these foreign wars. This is the kind of thing that will allow Obama to continue the wars and all the domestic bullshit like homeland security etc. I dont feel he has any intention of ending the tyranny of the last 8 years.

This serves as a propaganda piece to sway many of his supporters to get behind the wars.

I don't even believe al qaida releases these vidoes anymore. They just play so much into the hands of the ruling elite.

And if McCain had won they'd have released a message stating "More of the same, the US is the great Satan. We will destroy them."

Why would anyone take what they say as anything but targeted crap?

The point being missed here is that they think that Obama (along with Rice and Powell) are "house negroes" because they are non-whites who support the same things as their white political predecessors. This is entirely about America's support of Israel (Jews=Devils, etc.).

i dont think its necesarily about israel, but moreso Al Qaeda's insistance that the incoming administration led by Obama will not deviate from the same line of past adminsitrations, hence earning the title of house negro. the concept in islami that jews=devils is utter nonsense and holds no truth whatsoever.

in a sense i can see how they can try and inflame the situation by using inflammatory and racists quotes. But we must also remember that Malcolm X used those words in 1962 during his racist stint in the Nation of Islam before his conversion to mainstream Islam. heres the excerpt of Malcolms speech.

i can understand roachboys view that the war requires them to exist and show their presense. maybe this is a way to show that they do exist. Al Qaeda has a habit of releasing videos at the most opportune times during events marking anniversaries and historic moments. am i smelling a conspiracy here?

i think more in terms of symbiosis than conspiracy.

I'll say it again, since it seems to have been missed.

are you talking about the united states in the context of the "war on terror" or al-qaeda?
i think it works better if you mean both.

Interesting strategy. Now the racist assholes in the KKK are on the side of the "damn a-rabs." I wonder how that will play out in the white supremacist circles. I'd guess either their "patriotism" will kick in and they'll get pissed off, or they'll try to get weapons and training from Al Qaeda so they can get help shooting the president.

Originally in that post, I meant Al Qaeda, but certainly it works both ways, and I am fine with it being taken both ways. I am well-acquainted with the "war is a force that gives us meaning" bullshit in the US. More people need to read 1984 in high school.

Only a few of you seem to have figured the Al-Qaeda videos come with a postmark from Langley, Virginia.

I think Zawahiri may be concerned about Obama's popularity around the world especially among those who are inclined to view the US as the great satan.

At the risk of injecting some humor into a serious thread, am I the only one that saw the title and immediately thought of the SNL "Hardball" sketch with Harry Belafonte?

SNL Transcripts: Sen. John McCain: 10/19/02: Hardball

I am hoping Obama and liberals in this country recognize that we are at war with a group of people with their own agenda regardless of who is President of the US. Given Obama's proclamations about ending the war in Iraq, expanding the war in Afghanistan, and getting Osama that we are dealing with a group of people who will be responsive to what we do or what we fail to do. A real leader knows that even the best plans are contingent on conditions. The critique of Bush's execution of the war was way over the top, I also hope there is a realistic understanding of what we face.

A real leader probably won't need to trump up threat from OBL to further his own foreign policy goals.

O.k. is it your view that OBL is not/was not a threat? Saddam was not a threat? Iran is not a threat? There are no threats? If Obama agrees with you, his course of action is clear.

I think he is a threat, I just think his "threat level" was erroneously colored red in order to sell the American people on the Bush administrations foolish, half-baked, foreign policy goals.

I think that the Bush administration was very strategic about using fear to motivate. Miraculously, it failed to work for them in the previous election.

President Bush Holds Press Conference

White house press conference.

Lest you think it's the liberal media making shit up again, I linked to the White House's website.

So, apparently, Mr. Bush does not feel bin Laden is a threat, except in times when it is politically expedient for him to do so.

Why, then, do you seem to think he is a threat? Are you saying Mr. Bush is wrong? If so, why do you then support Mr. Bush in his execution of the "war on terror?"

As soon as Zawahiri said that, I imagined what Malcolm X might have to say about Zawahiri. Then I had myself a chuckle at Zawahiri's expense.

I think Al Qaeda would be against anyone who was the president of the US. Obama has made a huge impact on the consciousness of the world, it isnt unusual that they would seek attention by being associated with him - positively or negatively.

I think it is ironic how some people viewed the threat from Sadaam and Iraq under his control relative to how (at least during the campaign and I guess currently) they view the threat from bin Laden and al qeada in Afghanistan. Obama said he is going to escalate the war to go after a single person, with virtually no current power and who may be dead or very il, and that is o.k., but Bush going after Sadam was a travesty. I don't get it other than to assume that some people simply hated Bush to a level that anything he did was wrong. I think under Obama we will see a lot of this kind of thing. In my view there will not be much change, if any, from Bush to Obama.

Currently, I agree with the quote above, I don't think bin Laden is currently much of a threat.

Sometimes I just don't know what to make of your posts, ace.

First of all, the "left" is not in sync with Obama on going into Afghanistan. The reason you can't understand this is because of your annoying tendency to frame everything "not you" as "left." Hence, Obama is a leftist, all of his positions are leftists, and leftists are in sync with all of Obama's positions.

A more sane and informed view would recognize that the leftist, anti-war movement was supportive of Obama's anti-war stance and opinions range from reluctant to appalled that he wants to reproduce strategic errors in Afghanistan. I don't know of any leftists groups that support invading Afghanistan...although there may be some people who position themselves along the political spectrum in all sorts of permutations that I don't control the labels of who do support going after bin Laden.

Secondly, the reason I and others I know were opposed to invading Iraq had nothing at all to do with President Bush. I don't have any personal feelings about him one way or the other. I knew that destabilizing a nation-state would leave us with very little options if anything went wrong, I knew that the public was not aware that we were going to destabilize a nation-state, or the history of why and how Iraq became a nation-state with Saddam in power, the lack of insight into which led to the faction warfare we are witnessing today, I knew that the search for weapons of mass destruction was built on flimsy evidence...and that the link between Saddam and Al Queda was tenuous to put it mildly, I suspected that military contracts would strip our resources beyond capacity, and that in no uncertain terms was the war going to be quick or easy despite the claims initially made.

Most importantly, I am opposed to Bush's form of international relations. I prefer Obama's usage of leverage and diplomacy, which has a long history of success. Even after all this time I'm not sure what you are defending other than it appears we have achieved something...but I'm not sure what that something is. We've essentially supplanted one ethnic group for another and I'm always baffled as to why people think that is a good thing other than the fact they usually don't have a good handle on all the information.

I did not use the term "left" or "liberal", I simply stated that "some people" held the view that I find ironic. If you are not one of them, fine.

From early on here I emphasized the fact that Bush had the support of Congress, the UN and most of the world prior to the US taking military action in Iraq. Often people re-wrote history to make it seem that the Iraq war was a unilateral action by the US and specifically Bush. I thought this was a deception with the intent to gain favor with those tired of the war and those who were against the war from the beginning. Obama's rise to power was based on this deception. Needless to say Obama does not have my confidence nor do those who let the deception go on unquestioned. That is just my viewpoint

My experience, involving a number of different issues, has lead me to conclude that many dislike Bush so much that they do form their view based primarily on that issue. When you put Bush's actions in a historical context the contradictions are obvious to me, and we are already seeing the patterns when comparing Bush to Obama.

I don't want to go over the reasons why I think Saddam needed to be removed from power, this has been discussed many times in other threads and in great detail, however, "Bush's form of international relations" has not been much different than most other previous Presidents and won't be much different than Obama's approach. Obama has already moved to the "center-right" in his approach to international relations. His comments on international affairs have been very much in sync with what any US President would say. His claims of making the US respected again, etc.,etc. are words with no real meaning. The real test is based on what the US actually does and unless we are going to abdicate power to other nations or to organizations like the UN, nothing much will change as we exercise our dominance in the world.

You've stated elsewhere that you believe the Bush Doctrine is a concept concocted by the liberal media so I find it difficult to take your views on Bush's foreign policy with much more than "whatever."

The White House does release documents, and they often run counter to the ideas you and others have about its particular stances on events and behaviors; whether that's due to lack of obtaining the information yourselves I don't know, but it's out there.

V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

Even President Bush argues that the rise of terrorism and rogue states in the 21st century is different from past threats to our national security and must be handled differently than we have addressed threats in the past. You seem to be the only one holding to the notion that he didn't reformulate international policy to that end...it's not as though he's apologetic for that.

You seem to want to take one piece and not the other...Saddam was a threat and had to be handled differently from other nation-states, but we don't really have a new foreign affairs policy. There are some really smart people who believe the way he formulated our foreign policy is the correct way to do it, I just disagree and think a different approach is more stable in the long-term. I'm not sure why you think that's anything to be ashamed of and therefore deny...or maybe you just don't understand what we mean when we talk about it because it's simply not historically accurate that past presidents have acted the same way.

But even if they had, even President Bush believes that the ways we've handled threats in the past would not be sufficient to safeguard the nation in the 21st century.

Anyway, there's your answer. The discrepancies that you think you are pointing out are more to due with your misunderstanding of the issues you're talking about.

Who defined the "Bush Doctorine" in your opinion?

What is the "Bush Doctorine"?

How is the "Bush doctorine different from the foregn policy approach taken by Presidents over the past 60 years, or since WWII?

There is a difference between the "threat" and "tactics" used by our enemy. We clearly have to adapt to new and changing tactics, but the threat of terrorism is not new. If I am the only one who sees it the way I do, so be it. I am not concerned with popularity, I would rather be right.

My views are not as simple as you suggest above. I am not going to rehash all the Iraq war points. Going forward I think fighting a traditional war in Afghanistan is a mistake. Bush making Iraq the central front was the best strategy. Obama's desire to increase traditional troop presence in Afghanistan is going to be a waste of resources.

Bush's administration defined the doctrine.

Ace, do you know what a doctrine is?

understanding threats and the tactics one will employ to handle them make up what a "doctrine" is, Ace.
I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that President Bush needs to adapt to new threats, and decentralized, non-government threats to nation-states is a modern reality regardless of what you might think, but that he doesn't have a new set of policies specifying his administration's tactics in resolving them.

Basically, it seems like you just don't understand what a doctrine is, and because of your incessant need to disagree with everyone you don't perceive as being on the same side of an argument as you, it's making your conclusions incoherent to your premises.


Here's what you're telling me:
Bush has to respond to new tactics
Bush is responding to new tactics in the same way that every other president has responded to them

So how can they be new if other presidents have responded to them?

Then you tell me:
Bush speaks to me with clarity
The threat of terrorism is not new

So why does President Bush say that we are facing new threats and we have to respond differently?
Why would we need new tactics if the threat is the same?

To that you seem to say:
The threat of terrorism is not new
But we clearly have to adapt to new and changing tactics

So what is 'terrorism' to you?
Terrorism is defined by the state department as behavior
Tactics are behavior
So if the threat is the behavior, and the tactics are new, does that not logically dictate to you that the threat is now new?

I suppose your answer seems to be:
Regardless of what others may mean or say they mean
My understanding of things is right as I understand them
Therefore, I am unconcerned with what others may mean or say they mean...even if it's President Bush and his administration.

So your choice is to try to offend me. Then you proceed to try to tell me what I think. You could have addressed my questions. I understand how this works, you are not the first. Why not just call me a one word name, the way some have, it is far more efficient.