Outrage at ISIS
I’ve already discussed how flat and emotionless President Obama was when he gave his speech on ISIS Wednesday evening.
But what I didn’t mention was that most Americans, if called on to talk extemporaneously about the subject, could have easily conjured up the requisite emotion that Obama lacked. The violence and outright sadism of ISIS have aroused a special intensity of rage in the average citizen, if not in our cool president.
It wasn’t just his speech, either. There was a great deal of shock and disappointment earlier, even among Obama’s supporters, at Obama’s announcing James Foley’s murder and then going off to play golf. There were almost no pundits defending such callousness. And it’s not just the so-called “optics” that are off. This rot goes much deeper.
Last night I was watching a portion of a cable news show on Fox (I don’t remember which it was, but maybe Greta van Susteren’s?) featuring interviews with George Washington University students, asking them what anniversary was coming up (the answer, of course, was 9/11) and whether they’d heard about ISIS beheading two American journalists and could name the men who had been killed.
As with most of these surveys, some knew the facts. But it wasn’t hard to find students who were so out of touch that they failed to think of the first, and/or failed to come up with the names of the second. There was one young man who especially caught my attention. He not only didn’t know Foley’s or Sotloff’s names, but he hadn’t even gotten the news about their beheadings by ISIS, didn’t know the events had occurred. When the interviewer told him about it, the student looked at him in stunned disbelief.
I’m not showing the video to point out how uniformed this listener was, although it’s certainly true that he was very ignorant of what’s been going on. But we’re used to seeing that sort of thing in these clips (Watter’s World on Bill O’Reilly makes a specialty of interviews with voters whose information level is so low that they’re funny/sad). My point is that, even though this man obviously pays a minimum of attention to the news, he still knows enough to know this event was really, really bad, and to be deeply affected by it.
This is the quintessential low information voter. But even he feels this on an emotional level (his interview starts at around 1:37; he’s the one with the hat):
And that is one of the reasons people have turned away from Obama. His reaction to what’s been happening is just wrong. It’s off, and anyone who’s been watching and listening (still a sizable portion of the country’s citizens) can see that, whether they be on right or left.
Most people of different political persuasions can get riled up about religious fanatic barbarian punks sawing off the heads of journalists and videotaping the event proudly for all the world to see, in order to recruit more religious fanatic barbarian punks who find this all to be a great inspiration. Even people who aren’t usually disposed towards using the word “evil” find that it fits the definition, and they are roused to anger. And a president who sounds neither roused nor angry just doesn’t seem right.
[NOTE: Looking at the text of Obama’s speech, you’ll see that, for Obama, it employs strong language. He calls ISIS “terrorists,” who are “unique in their brutality,” who have threatened a group with “genocide,” and who have committed “acts of barbarism.” All true (although maybe not the “uniqueness”). But if you do a search for the word “evil” in his speech, you will only find this: “We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm,” a curiously passive and negative statement, although also a very true one.
Now, I’m not saying Obama has to call ISIS “evil” to be credible in this fight. But I think his failure to do so is evidence of a deep and personal reluctance to think in those sorts of traditional moral terms, or to echo George Bush with his “axis of evil” speech. If there is an axis of evil (and I believe there is), then ISIS is certainly a hub, so why not call it that, and with some outrage in your voice? Failure to do so has political consequences, as I think Obama is currently discovering. And I think those consequences are international.
That’s not to say that if Obama could talk the talk at this point people would believe he that could walk the walk. There have been too many missteps, wafflings, backtrackings, and support of the wrong groups and failure to support the right groups. Too much display of weakness. People no longer believe Obama’s words; only his acts will count.]
Did you notice that, as the the young man with the hat absorbed the awful news that the journalists had been beheaded, he whipped off his hat? I was struck by this old-fashioned gesture in one so young, and by the way it revealed his genuine shock and dismay at the enormity of the news. An LIV indeed, but I’m guessing, a decent kid at heart.
Obama’s lack of reaction is even worse considering that our special forces could have rescued Foley, but Obama delayed for over a month before giving the OK. So he’s one of the few people on the planet who could have prevented it. I can’t decide if there’s something wrong with him psychologically, or if it’s that he sympathizes with the terrorists and not the Americans. At this point, I’m hoping he’s a psychopath. Scary times indeed.
Obama is a leftist. Leftists are moral relativists and thus don’t think in “those sorts of traditional moral terms”. What am I missing?
Mrs Whatsit:
Yes, I think that’s part of the reason I highlighted him. He seemed genuinely and intensely shocked and disturbed by the news, and you are right to point out that almost instinctive and traditional gesture of respect.
so far two girls from austria have disappeared believed to be “tricked” into fighting for isis. two others were stopped and a couple of american young feminists were also heading to fight.
ISIS has a female bregade
and they are doing what happened duriing the spanish fights against fascism that russia had used people for.
The Internet army of ISIS, after being chased from social networks like Facebook and Twitter, is now recruiting and fundraising on the Russian social network VKontakte
given that one of the founders is a russian (who i named previously in a thread which gets moved on to new items the minute things get to close for comfort)
the “no longer soviet soviets” have now claimed to have shut them down from their social media. but that remains to be seen over time. they shut down two, but apparat found over 100…
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the Caliph of ISIS
his full name is: Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai
aka
Amir al-Mu’minin Caliph Ibrahim
On 4 October 2011, the US State Department listed al-Baghdadi as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and announced a reward of up to US$10 million for information leading to his capture or death
he replaced Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi who served isis from October 14, 2006 — 18 April 2010 when it was shown that he was arrested by Iraq – and is now dead.
still think its new?
On 29 June 2014, ISIS announced the establishment of a caliphate. Al-Baghdadi was named its caliph, to be known as Caliph Ibrahim, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was renamed the Islamic State (IS)
ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn–later commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)–formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999, which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq
and who works with, assists, supplies and generally is the larger state that controls IRAQ?
their allies are
Boko Haram
Jemaah Islamiya
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters
Iraq recieves equipment, explosives, training, personell and even protection in the world courts from Russia… who blocks the un security council since bush was president.
and funny funny
After months of speculation, the U.S. State Department announced in July that it had found Russia to be in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over Moscow’s testing of a new medium-range, ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM). – September 2014
Russia successfully tested its new submarine-launched Bulava intercontinental missile, a 12-metre- long weapon that can deliver a nuclear strike with up to 100 times the force of the atomic blast that devastated Hiroshima in 1945
and then the news reported that it still has not dismantled its missiles going back decades, which were subtracted from totals.
In October and November of this year, the naval fleet will carry out two more launches with two rocket cruisers equipped with ballistic missiles
russia has a very long history with people in the middle east and i can list a lot of them, and their code names.
but, go on… none of this matters as it doesnt exist in any of your, or other peoples dialogue as to things going on… after all, cargo cults only look at the surface, and deny the substance that is underneath.
A Bulava missile weighs 36.8 tonnes, can travel 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and hold six to 10 nuclear warheads
do note that every time we have had a liberal president in office we have had major conflicts (many lasting into the offices of others) – i below listing major and minor conflicts
Wilson, WWI, Russian Civil War,
FDR, WWII
Truman/Eisenhower, Korea, (First Indochina War)
Kennedy, Vietnam
LBJ, Vietnam, Operation Power Pack
Nixon. Vietnam
Ford, Vietnam (after watergate)
Reagan, First Gulf of Sidra incident,Invasion of Grenada,Invasion of Panama
George H. W. Bush, Persian Gulf War, Operation Restore Hope (somalia)
Clinton, Bosnian War, Operation Uphold Democracy, Kosovo War
George W. Bush, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War
Obama, 2011 military intervention in Libya, 2014 American intervention in Iraq
in many ways all of these were world war conflicts
except that sometime after vietnam, we started referring to the groups of countries as coalitions, not world.
what changed was american technological superiority after vietnam…
the worst conflicts the US has been in started when the US miltary was heavily reduced… that would be WWI, russian civil war (war weary), WWII (also war weary), korea, vietnam.
we have not had a major conflict with huge casualties since then, but also, we have not cut our military down from that period until obama
I’ve already discussed how flat and emotionless President Obama was when he gave his speech on ISIS Wednesday evening.
If Valerie Jarrett had been able to convince the POTUS that the Koch brothers were funding ISIS, and that Ted Cruz was writing the ISIS press releases, you may rest assured that the POTUS could have mustered up beaucoup passion against ISIS.
I also was struck, and touched, by the way that kid took off his (ridiculous) hat!
Watching Obama speak, I wondered how long his eyes have had that weird, flat, baleful look. It really alarms me.
Obama is a textbook sociopath. Brings to mind a few other characters in the past, who were less restrained.
I the know, I’m a broken record.
ISIL is a deception. It was never just about the Levant.
Barry can’t put evil and Muslim in the same speech, let alone the same paragraph.
He’s standing with Muslims — just as he said during his original 2008 campaign.
Creating a virtually open border, refusing to deport illegal aliens, and purposeful actions that are aimed at making the ME more filled with hatred and chaos are not motivated by a desire to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic. Something smells, and what we are smelling is the evil, putrid rot in the head of the fish.
On the one hand I wouldn’t put too much into this clip because I wouldn’t, if stopped on the street, be able to remember the journalists names either.
But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t be able to name the nude celebs either. But most of them could! That is sad.
And, yes, I was rather surprised to see the hat removal gesture and the genuine shock on that one man’s face.
The young man who was so shocked by the news of the beheadings reminded me of a young second cousin of mine. He’s a person who is very open with his emotions. You can usually tell where he stands just by his body language. If a person values life, news of such barbarism cannot help but cut deep.
What really burns me up is that Obama is only taking action because of public outrage. To him those poor journalists were collateral damage. He must be steaming that the deaths of just two people could cause such a reaction and force him to do something he is loathe to do. Since he is loathe to get involved, unless we are lucky, the outlook is not good. I pray for our military. They’re the ones who are going to pay the price for half measures taken for political reasons.