# AQ uses racial slurs against Obama



## jollyjacktar (19 Nov 2008)

Well, thems fightin words...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081119/obama_terrorism_081119/20081119?hub=TopStories


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

If BHO thinks the islamic/arab world is now in love with him, the USA, and his policies, because GWB is now out of the picture, he's got some bad news coming.

The USA is the Great Satan in 'their' eyes, and comments coming from our enemies should be expected. What they are planning/plotting agaisnt us is as real as a threat as it was a year ago.

No miracles from BHO.

His life through rose coloured glasses is about to get a wake up call.

OWDU


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Nov 2008)

Who were the original slave traders ? Arabs. Of course you can hardly expect terrorists to be pc.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Nov 2008)

Have they no shame?  I mean, throwing acid on little girls is one thing, but calling Obama names is really going too far....  :  There really must be nothing else going on in the world to report on.


----------



## medicineman (20 Nov 2008)

AQ uses racial slurs against Obama...and why does everyone seem so surprised by this?

MM


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Who were the original slave traders ? Arabs. Of course you can hardly expect terrorists to be pc.



Thats a very broad and borderline racist comment you have there. You do realize that al Qaeda, while made up of many Arab members, is not indicative of an *entire race of peoples*? Not to mention the large support they have in other countries, for example the world's largest Muslim country: Indonesia.

-C/D


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Thats a very broad and borderline racist comment you have there. You do realize that al Qaeda, while made up of many Arab members, is not indicative of an *entire race of peoples*? Not to mention the large support they have in other countries, for example the world's largest Muslim country: Indonesia.
> 
> -C/D



Do you mean to tell me that you are denying that the Arabs were the first to trade slaves?


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you mean to tell me that you are denying that the Arabs were the first to trade slaves?



No, but it is entirely obvious that his comments are mean't to connect al Qaeda with Arabs as a whole race. It's like saying a large percentage of black people are in prison, in reply to a thread about a black celebrity being imprisoned. It may be "just a fact", but it's obvious that it has racist connotations behind it.

-C/D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> No, but it is entirely obvious that his comments are mean't to connect al Qaeda with Arabs as a whole race. It's like saying a large percentage of black people are in prison, in reply to a thread about a black celebrity being imprisoned. It may be "just a fact", but it's obvious that it has racist connotations behind it.
> 
> -C/D



It's only obvious if that's how you want to decipher it. It may well not mean anything to someone else.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's only obvious if that's how you want to decipher it. It may well not mean anything to someone else.



Well then, hence the purpose of my reply to his comment. It is up for people to decide if they honestly believe that this comment was of a purely factual purpose and did not have any meaning behind it whatsoever. Others may judge how they wish, I have made my comments.

-C/D


----------



## twistedcables (20 Nov 2008)

Toronto Sun cartoon said it best:  A Caption next to Obama's face reads:  House Negro?  That's a compliment coming from a number two toilet trained terrorist!   :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> No, but it is entirely obvious that his comments are mean't to connect al Qaeda with Arabs as a whole race. It's like saying a large percentage of black people are in prison, in reply to a thread about a black celebrity being imprisoned. It may be "just a fact", but it's obvious that it has racist connotations behind it.
> 
> -C/D





			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Well then, hence the purpose of my reply to his comment. It is up for people to decide if they honestly believe that this comment was of a purely factual purpose and did not have any meaning behind it whatsoever. Others may judge how they wish, I have made my comments.
> 
> -C/D


Well.  I'll have to side with recceguy and say that you seem to find everyone a "racist".  Simple comments on historical fact or fiction seem enough to set you off.  

Are you so manipulative that you have to cry "racism" everytime you are spoken to?  You know, it may not be your race or religion that set people off, but more of your attitude.  I have no idea of what you look like, what faith you practice, or even what language is your mother tongue, but from what I have seen in your posts has told me that you have a "shitty" attitude.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  I'll have to side with recceguy and say that you seem to find everyone a "racist".  Simple comments on historical fact or fiction seem enough to set you off.
> 
> Are you so manipulative that you have to cry "racism" everytime you are spoken to?  You know, it may not be your race or religion that set people off, but more of your attitude.  I have no idea of what you look like, what faith you practice, or even what language is your mother tongue, but from what I have seen in your posts has told me that you have a "shitty" attitude.



My apologies if I come off as manipulative, that is not my intention. On second reading I did not convey my opinions in a proper way, it was much too antagonistic for my usual style of dialogue and for that I apologize. So, with that in mind I wish to expand on what I mean.

When looking at comments such as those, we have to understand motive behind them. Every post here has a motive, i.e. a reason for that poster to have posted that piece of information, anecdote or opinion. In particular, reading into his post regarding Arabs and slave-trading, one must look at the relatively obvious motive at hand here. You claim that his motive is of an objective, encyclopedian reasoning, i.e. he is simply posting a fact for the sake of that fact. However for the most part, people do not post like this at all. With that in mind, I see no other motive for him other than to paint a race of peoples (Arab people), with that of these comments and al Qaeda. 

Now some may say I am simply being too touchy but I apologize, I have to be. It's hard not to be touchy when racism and intolerance is still such a strong issue in today's society. It's touchy because its still significantly prevalent. Especially considering this one, where the connections between Arab people and al Qaeda are made only further racial intolerance. 

Now with my post finished one may probably ask, what is my motive? Well I hopefully made it clear with the content of my post but I will be direct as well. My motive is to combat racial intolerance that is since, and if that means even attacking the slightest and most innocent comment just to show the possibility of it being of racist motive, than so be it. I hope I could've atleast made people think about the comments they make and the implications it has on other people. While many of us here are intelligent and rational enough to extract simply a factual tidbit (and it is an interesting one regarding Arab history), however others with much lower propensity of rationalization would seek the most obvious extraction out of this comment. This extraction being the connection between Arabs and al Qaeda as a racial fact. So I implore people to be more careful with their comments, as they have serious repercussions.

-C/D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2008)

I think you're taking yourself way to seriously and you can't accept that the rest of us just don't really care a whole lot about whether you can sleep at night. PLease try get over yourself, you're starting to preach. And that doesn't get recieved well here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Thats a very broad and borderline *racist comment * you have there. You do realize that al Qaeda, while made up of many Arab members, is not indicative of an *entire race of peoples*? Not to mention the large support they have in other countries, for example the world's largest Muslim country: Indonesia.
> 
> -C/D



Please back up your post with something to differentiate between what is being presented as a fact, instead of pulling out the racist comment card out.  Are you even aware of what the TB and CF consider racist comments or conduct?



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> My apologies if I come off as manipulative, that is not my intention. On second reading I did not convey my opinions in a proper way, it was much too antagonistic for my usual style of dialogue and for that I apologize. So, with that in mind I wish to expand on what I mean.
> 
> When looking at comments such as those, we have to understand motive behind them. Every post here has a motive, i.e. a reason for that poster to have posted that piece of information, anecdote or opinion. In particular, *reading into his post regarding Arabs and slave-trading*, one must look at the relatively obvious motive at hand here. You claim that his motive is of an objective, encyclopedian reasoning, i.e. he is simply posting a fact for the sake of that fact. However for the most part, people do not post like this at all. With that in mind, I see no other motive for him other than to paint a race of peoples (Arab people), with that of these comments and al Qaeda.



Who are you to say what anothers intent was in posting?  I've bolded that part that makes your comments in error, IMO.  You are determining anothers intent.  You've no right to do that.  



> Now some may say I am simply being too touchy but I apologize, I have  choose  to be. It's hard not to be touchy when racism and intolerance is still such a strong issue in today's society. It's touchy because its still significantly prevalent. Especially considering this one, where the connections between Arab people and al Qaeda are made only further racial intolerance.



You don't HAVE to but you certainly CHOOSE to.

Show me how that comment fits into the racist comment or conduct IAW the TB definition, which is the accepted and employed standard for the CF.



> Now with my post finished one may probably ask, what is my motive? Well I hopefully made it clear with the content of my post but I will be direct as well. My motive is to combat racial intolerance that is since, and if that means even attacking the slightest and most innocent comment just to show the possibility of it being of racist motive, than so be it. I hope I could've atleast made people think about the comments they make and the implications it has on other people. While many of us here are intelligent and rational enough to extract simply a factual tidbit (and it is an interesting one regarding Arab history), however others with much lower propensity of rationalization would seek the most obvious extraction out of this comment. This extraction being the connection between Arabs and al Qaeda as a racial fact. So I implore people to be more careful with their comments, as they have serious repercussions.
> 
> -C/D



So you have self-appointed yourself as judge, jury and prosecution?  Then that is where your fault lies.  And...I believe we are trying to teach TOLERANCE in the CF...not INTOLERANCE.

In short and summary, you jumped the gun and YOU made assumptions, you have decided what anothers intent was, you have decided, without question, that it was a racist comment.  I am sorry but that is not the way things work in the real world. 

FWIW, if you'd like to continue, I have about 4 inches of references WRT to racism, CHRA, TB policy, CF policy, RO and HA Reference Manuals and such to refer to, but, please engage me over PM if you wish to do so before this one goes down the shi**ter.


----------



## twistedcables (20 Nov 2008)

Arabs were not the first to trade slaves - just take a read at the BIBLE to see how far back slavery goes.  The Arabs simply used a system already in place by everyone else.  Slavery has been in every civilization known: the whites did it, blacks, browns, orientals etc.  They did it to each other and they did it to other peoples.  We should rightfully not want to be associated with such a past.

Finally, ease up folks...this is quickly getting sticky.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Who are you to say what anothers intent was in posting?  I've bolded that part that makes your comments in error, IMO.  You are determining anothers intent.  You've no right to do that.
> 
> Show me how that comment fits into the racist comment or conduct IAW the TB definition, which is the accepted and employed standard for the CF.
> 
> ...



C/D

I would like to add that your interpretation seems to have backfired and instead of pointing out racism, you are demonstrating racism.  Your biased opinions of what others write, whether what you interpret as being what they intended or not, is a form of racism.  It could be construed as a false accusation of a person's comments, if the comment was not intended as biased, and a racist comment in itself on your part.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Nov 2008)

I vote for twisted cable.  Besides the topic at hand is the slur by AQ which is trying (and failing) to stake out a position of moral superiority.  You are nothing but a puppet for ......  With the exception of the name calling, all of his comments have been made by many bloggers in other fora.  Instead of presenting him as a puppet of the Jewish elite though his rise in position has been attributed to marketing, the mafia, big business and a pushy wife.  What is the difference?  This time a declared enemy of the state has made those remarks and called him a name to boot.  I suggest that history will decide whether Obama was hot air or real.  Personally I remain skeptical but I am willing to wait (as if I had a choice) before making a final judgement.  As for the name, it is up to Obama to prove that it is just that "a name" and not an earned description.  The one who didn't deserve the title is Miss Rice IMHO.  By the way, what is the difference between A** Kisser and House Negro?   Think about it!


----------



## Yrys (25 Jan 2009)

To return to the first topic : 

To combat Obama, al-Qaeda hurls insults, Washington Post
Effort Hints at Group's Consternation

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. 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. "These raids are Obama's gift to you before he takes 
office," the Egyptian-born Zawahiri said in the message, addressed to "Muslim brothers 
and mujaheddin." "This is Obama, whom the American machine of lies tried to portray 
as the rescuer who will change the policy of America," Zawahiri said, according to a 
translation provided by Site Intelligence Group, a private company that monitors 
jihadist communications.

Days before Obama's inauguration, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden chimed in with 
a mocking prediction that the new president would founder under the weight of the 
military and financial burdens he would inherit. No matter what he tried to do, 
Obama would ultimately lose, bin Laden said on Jan. 14.

"If he withdraws from the war, it is military defeat," he said in an audiotaped message. 
"And if he continues it, he drowns in economic crisis. How can it be that [Bush] passed 
over to him two wars, not one war, and he is unable to continue them? _We are on 
our path to open other fronts_, with permission from Allah."

Friday, a new al-Qaeda salvo attempted to embarrass Obama, a day after the new 
president announced his plans for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Appearing 
on the videotaped message were two men who enlisted in al-Qaeda after being 
freed from that detention center.  "By Allah, imprisonment only increased our 
persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for and were imprisoned 
for," said Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, who described himself as a deputy commander 
for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The translation was also provided by the Site group.

Site founder Rita Katz said the messages show "just how much al-Qaeda is intimidated 
by Obama." "The leadership of al-Qaeda is very concerned about the wide support that 
Obama has been receiving from Arab and Muslim countries," Katz said. "To combat this 
threat, al-Qaeda has embarked on a propaganda campaign against Obama, not only by 
linking him to the policies of the Bush administration, including the occupation of Iraq 
and Afghanistan, but also by accusing him of actions in which he had no part."

Other jihadist groups appear less threatened, or perhaps more accepting of an American 
commander who appears more open to peaceful accommodation, Katz said. A publication 
known as Al-Samoud, linked to the Taliban in Afghanistan, viewed Obama's election as a 
welcome sign that Americans are "very much tired from the bitter war" and do not wish 
to prolong a conflict "ignited by Bush's insanity and his satanic policy."

Regardless of how Obama is viewed now by the Muslim world -- savior, menace or 
something in between -- the opinions will almost certainly change in the coming months. 
For Muslim countries, as for the United States, perceptions based on rhetoric and image 
will soon collide with reality as the policies of the new administration take form, said Pillar, 
the former CIA official.

"Inevitably Obama will make certain decisions that will be unpopular and which the 
propagandists will quickly castigate," Pillar said. "I expect that the honeymoon will 
be just as fragile and short as with the American electorate."


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

If anything, I would expect AQ the TB and all the other radical groups in the world to trigger events around the world ... with the expectation of catching Mr Obama & his government with their proverbial pants down... Before they have a chance to get their act together.


----------



## Blue Max (27 Jan 2009)

A-Q's response to Obama's presidency shows that they are desperately searching for a way to demonise Obama in the Muslim world, unlike G.W. Bush who was a perfect foil for their lies.

Obama's response yesterday was masterful, in that he gave his first televised interview as president, to Al-Arabiya thus speaking directly to the Arab world, reminding them that he has Muslim faithful in his own family.

So far the the new administrations P-R war is making A-Q look like the amateurs they are.

BM


----------

