Long-time Obama pal, George Stephanopoulos, reports at ABC News the so-called Al Qaeda ‘Playbook’ includes plans to use minorities to carry out terrorist attacks:
ABC News reporters, who apparently have the inside track with White House intel, further report:
Osama bin Laden aspired to damage the United States not only through persistent terror attacks, but also by attempting to inflame race and class tensions in hopes of tearing down the country from the inside out, according to officials briefed on the evidence trove recovered from the al Qaeda leader’s Pakistan compound.
According to materials in the cache of documents recovered in the U.S. Navy SEAL raid that brought down the terror leader, bin Laden planned to specifically recruit African-American Muslim converts to carry out attacks on the homeland. The goal was to not only kill and maim in the actual operations, but to create a divisiveness that would cause more damage than al Qaeda could ever hope to do on their own.
“Because there were many blacks in the U.S., he wanted to capitalize on them to further the jihadi cause,” one U.S. official told ABC News. “Al Qaeda sees the black convert community as ripe for recruiting.”
While it has long been known that radical preachers and some prison imams have targeted the convert community for jihad recruitment, the references show core al Qaeda’s keen interest in the tactic.
While this is all very interesting, why is this particular detail propaganda from the ‘Playbook’ being revealed?
After all, as ABC reports, the Rev. Al Sharpton says the idea is “radical,” “outrageous,” and a “cynical abuse of African-Americans and America in general.”
Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR, stated “any belief by bin Laden that he could prompt widespread violence in such a way between any groups was a ‘fantasy’.”
“I think the viewpoint reflects more of a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist outlook on American whites than anything based in reality. I think it’s fantasy based on a fundamental misunderstanding of American society,” Hooper said.
You tell me……..What’s the difference between osama and obama……….they both are destorying this Nation from within!!!! I guess the only difference at the moment osama will use physical destruction along with evolution, but mark my words if obama cannot complete his hideous task by evolution, he damned sure isn’t above revolution!!!! So you tell me just who is worse!!!! to me they are both terrorists!!!
For 16 hours Mr. Obama was banging [his] head and kicking himself in the butt for having to do something that [he] had been working [his] whole life and career to prevent having to do; use conservative American logic and planning to do anything. Not only was [he] abusing himself, but at the same time, Obama [multitasking] had to listen to all the members of [his] “Think-Tank” trying to be able to spin the absolutely necessary attack on Osama as courageous, [his] “gutsy” idea, and the greatest moment in liberal progressive history; a slight notch above God’s casting Lucifer into the fires of Hades. Well, guess what. Not only is Obama showing [his] true narcissistic colors, but does Major Major Major Major, from “Catch 22,” come to mind? I believe there may be some kind of a genealogical match in there, somewhere.
No doubt someone will do a word search and find how many times our media has mentioned ‘Osama’ and ‘Obama’ since Osama was killed by SEAL team 6. I wonder who would win that particular contest. Since we don’t really have all that much useful to do, we might even try to find out how often reporters and talking heads have used these two names interchangeably. They’re really quite similar – the only difference being, that one is dead and one is still alive. Both have killed, after all. (And don’t let me go into degrees of killing – killing one, or thousands – and get all caught up in an argument to determine at which point killing actually becomes a menace.)
Now you might say that one is on our side while the other one wasn’t. Fair point; but let’s define ‘sides’. Let’s say there are ‘sides’. Our side demands submission; that is to say that we expect their side to refrain from killing us. Their side appears not yet convinced that such submission is to their benefit. In Islam, submission is the ultimate goal. They will kill enough of us to convince the rest to submit. The same is true of us (in a way).
Killing is the ultimate statement anyone can make. In taking a life we become god-like, and thus assert that we exist. After one has done it, there is no walking it back. It is the finality of it that should frighten all those who subsist on the illusion of death. Submission, on the other hand, is to bow to one’s fate. One continues to live, but one might as well be dead. When the Palestinian suicide bomber (whose vest failed to detonate) was asked why he did it, he claimed that he was already dead; that the Israelis had rendered him dead long ago. Another example is the phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death” – the American apple pie version of the same thought.
It’s difficult to work things out and enter into an understanding when one has abandoned all reason; when reason needs at the very least to have a foundation on which both sides can agree, such as life being better than death. Islam doesn’t work that way. Therefore, the default position is power. Islam has discovered that the slow action of water running over a stone will over time reduce that stone. Islam has seen the action of water create great canyons. It is committed to chip away at what it believes to be evil and transient. In fact, Islam demands it.
We cannot connect. We are far too busy with our own lives to grasp the abstractions on which Islam builds its theology. We see them simply as aggressive and unyielding, without realizing that we are unyielding as well. What we call ‘advanced’, Islam calls ‘evil’. We claim to be non-violent, but it is us they are reacting to. Our money is perceived as poison by them. It threatens the purity of their abstract view. It is we who are the bulls in their china closets. What we think of as our kind-hearted outreach only serves to shatter more of their china. They see us as aggressors. In their minds, itt is we who fail to recognize their purity; who label their purity as dangerous and corrupt and threaten to overwhelm it. It is they who find themselves backed into a corner from which they snarl and fight …and wear away our confidence – like the stone at the edge of the ocean that eventually becomes sand.
We stand at a crossroads. Will we stand up and fight as Krishna demanded of Arjuna during the epic battle of Kurukshetra, or will we continue to appease, knowing that appeasement – like valium – becomes addictive? We too have a right to practice our beliefs. In our ever shrinking world, can we really afford to build enough closets for everyone to live separately? The obvious answer is no. Obama’s solution: Let’s all jump into their closet and tear down our own.
. Bare Naked Islam
. Chesler Chronicles/Phyllis Chesler
. Creeping Sharia
. Daniel Pipes
. David Horowitz Freedom Center
. FrontPageMag.com
. HumanEvents.com
. Jawa Report
. Jihad Watch
. Militant Islam Monitor
. Political Islam
. Trencherbone
. Weasel Zippers
. WorldThreats.com
. Yid With Lid
. Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott
. The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott
You tell me……..What’s the difference between osama and obama……….they both are destorying this Nation from within!!!! I guess the only difference at the moment osama will use physical destruction along with evolution, but mark my words if obama cannot complete his hideous task by evolution, he damned sure isn’t above revolution!!!! So you tell me just who is worse!!!! to me they are both terrorists!!!
For 16 hours Mr. Obama was banging [his] head and kicking himself in the butt for having to do something that [he] had been working [his] whole life and career to prevent having to do; use conservative American logic and planning to do anything. Not only was [he] abusing himself, but at the same time, Obama [multitasking] had to listen to all the members of [his] “Think-Tank” trying to be able to spin the absolutely necessary attack on Osama as courageous, [his] “gutsy” idea, and the greatest moment in liberal progressive history; a slight notch above God’s casting Lucifer into the fires of Hades. Well, guess what. Not only is Obama showing [his] true narcissistic colors, but does Major Major Major Major, from “Catch 22,” come to mind? I believe there may be some kind of a genealogical match in there, somewhere.
No doubt someone will do a word search and find how many times our media has mentioned ‘Osama’ and ‘Obama’ since Osama was killed by SEAL team 6. I wonder who would win that particular contest. Since we don’t really have all that much useful to do, we might even try to find out how often reporters and talking heads have used these two names interchangeably. They’re really quite similar – the only difference being, that one is dead and one is still alive. Both have killed, after all. (And don’t let me go into degrees of killing – killing one, or thousands – and get all caught up in an argument to determine at which point killing actually becomes a menace.)
Now you might say that one is on our side while the other one wasn’t. Fair point; but let’s define ‘sides’. Let’s say there are ‘sides’. Our side demands submission; that is to say that we expect their side to refrain from killing us. Their side appears not yet convinced that such submission is to their benefit. In Islam, submission is the ultimate goal. They will kill enough of us to convince the rest to submit. The same is true of us (in a way).
Killing is the ultimate statement anyone can make. In taking a life we become god-like, and thus assert that we exist. After one has done it, there is no walking it back. It is the finality of it that should frighten all those who subsist on the illusion of death. Submission, on the other hand, is to bow to one’s fate. One continues to live, but one might as well be dead. When the Palestinian suicide bomber (whose vest failed to detonate) was asked why he did it, he claimed that he was already dead; that the Israelis had rendered him dead long ago. Another example is the phrase, “Give me liberty, or give me death” – the American apple pie version of the same thought.
It’s difficult to work things out and enter into an understanding when one has abandoned all reason; when reason needs at the very least to have a foundation on which both sides can agree, such as life being better than death. Islam doesn’t work that way. Therefore, the default position is power. Islam has discovered that the slow action of water running over a stone will over time reduce that stone. Islam has seen the action of water create great canyons. It is committed to chip away at what it believes to be evil and transient. In fact, Islam demands it.
We cannot connect. We are far too busy with our own lives to grasp the abstractions on which Islam builds its theology. We see them simply as aggressive and unyielding, without realizing that we are unyielding as well. What we call ‘advanced’, Islam calls ‘evil’. We claim to be non-violent, but it is us they are reacting to. Our money is perceived as poison by them. It threatens the purity of their abstract view. It is we who are the bulls in their china closets. What we think of as our kind-hearted outreach only serves to shatter more of their china. They see us as aggressors. In their minds, itt is we who fail to recognize their purity; who label their purity as dangerous and corrupt and threaten to overwhelm it. It is they who find themselves backed into a corner from which they snarl and fight …and wear away our confidence – like the stone at the edge of the ocean that eventually becomes sand.
We stand at a crossroads. Will we stand up and fight as Krishna demanded of Arjuna during the epic battle of Kurukshetra, or will we continue to appease, knowing that appeasement – like valium – becomes addictive? We too have a right to practice our beliefs. In our ever shrinking world, can we really afford to build enough closets for everyone to live separately? The obvious answer is no. Obama’s solution: Let’s all jump into their closet and tear down our own.
Pingback: Steynian 447st « Free Canuckistan!