Obama displayed 'weakness' in Arab TV interview

[Stephen Eisel]

Obama displayed 'weakness' in Arab TV interview

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Defa ... ?id=401788

A Middle East expert says President Barack Obama showed weakness during a recent interview on an Arab television network.

President Obama granted his first formal television interview since being inaugurated to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya cable network. The president reportedly granted the interview in order to reach out to Arab leaders who have been wary at best of U.S. efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

Brigitte Gabriel is founder and president of ACT! for America and the author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. She says the president conveyed a message that America is weak.

"The mistake that President Obama [made] is not only going on Al-Arabiya, but talking in a way that made the United States look bad by saying to them that America needs to listen instead of always dictating," says Gabriel.

[Jim DeVito]

Anyone who writes a book entitled "They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam" must not be taken serious.

[Stephen Eisel]

Anyone who writes a book entitled "They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam" must not be taken serious.

beacuse 9-11 was just another a day

[Lynn Farris]

I for one was completely blown away by the interview. Maybe it is because of Pres. Bush' attitude. But I was so proud. The President was articulate, reasonable, intelligent. To me he sounded very strong, but approachable. He reiterated themes from his inaguaral address.

I think there are people on both sides that don't want peace in the middle east. There are people on both sides that don't want a resolution to the Iraq conflict. They will not like this.

Being intelligent isn't a sign of weakness. Sounding like a cowboy in an old western "gonna smoke em out" being arrogant to the rest of the world "either your with us or your against us" isn't really seen as strong. In most countries it is seen as arrogant and imperialistic

Obama was doing multiple things in this interview. He was appealing to the moderate Muslim community to work together for peace. The majority of Muslims want this. The majority of Muslims came with a more positive attitude towards Obama that has scared the terrorists. They have been pushing a campaign that Obama is just like Bush, since Bush and his actions have been great for their recruitment. Obama went over their heads and talked directly to the Muslim world. Secondly he was indirectly addressing all of the nations of the world. We need their help to get us out of Iraq and to get partners in our other diplomatic efforts with Pakistan, Iran etc. They don't want to partner with a nation that they see is unwilling to listen to them or one that is beligerant. He sounded intelligent and open to listening.

His appointment of George Mitchell was generally thought of as a brilliant choice. However he was critized for appointing an envoy who was too even handed too fair.

Our State Department is monitoring the reaction carefully. But like establishing bipartisanship, one interview, one action does not solve the problem. Actions speak louder than words.

Having been in a foreign country when the interview was delivered, I had the impression that everyone is being hopeful. Closing Gitmo, stopping torture, talking to people respectfully, all great signs, hopeful signs. But lets see what really happens.

[Jim DeVito]

Being intelligent isn't a sign of weakness. Sounding like a cowboy in an old western "gonna smoke em out" being arrogant to the rest of the world "either your with us or your against us" isn't really seen as strong. In most countries it is seen as arrogant and imperialistic

Could not agree more.

[Stephen Eisel]

Being intelligent isn't a sign of weakness. Sounding like a cowboy in an old western "gonna smoke em out" being arrogant to the rest of the world "either your with us or your against us" isn't really seen as strong. In most countries it is seen as arrogant and imperialistic

Could not agree more.

Making the same errors as Clinton (on terrorism) is not a sign of being intelligent. Closing Guantanamo is also big a mistake.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/61061.html

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

''We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,'' retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. "We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror — or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered loses as a result of the war."

[Lynn Farris]

Steve you quote:

'We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,'' retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. "We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror — or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered loses as a result of the war."

First, when we give up human rights and our ideals the terrorists win. That isn't honoring the families whose families died. Encouraging more people to join terrorists groups because we are percieved as the "evil ones" doesn't keep our country safer.

Secondly, looking at these detainees. Some may really be terrorists. But from what I read, we paid to get people to turn these people in. Often we have no more evidence against some of these people than the people that we paid said they were terrorists. This seems to be the case in some of the children that we are holding there. We have a Canadian citizen that Canada wants back badly. After years of detention and torture, I bet none of them like us now, I'll agree. But I agree with Obama, go one by one over the list and decide individually what to do with each of them. The Supreme Court has ruled against Bush. These prisoners do have the right to habeus corpus. Try them and execute a sentence or release them. Is it possible that some of these people after years of detention and torture at our hands will join up with an anti-American group? Maybe. But does that give us the right to hold them? I think you have to be sentenced based on what you did - not what your feelings are or what you may do in the future at least that was the way it was in America. Do you really want to be able to be held indefinately based on what someone thinks you may do in the future? Hey, I think there was a Spielberg movie made about this a few years back.

Gitmo is a disgrace and a world wide public relations disaster.

[Stephen Eisel]

First, when we give up human rights and our ideals the terrorists win. That isn't honoring the families whose families died. Encouraging more people to join terrorists groups because we are percieved as the "evil ones" doesn't keep our country safer.

and what has happened since 9-11? Has the US been attacked?

[Stephen Eisel]

Plans to close Guantanamo anger 9/11 victims' families


Plans to close Guantanamo are not sitting well with the Sept. 11 victims' relatives (clicky)

Tuesday, January 20th 2009, 7:13 AM

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba — Plans to close Guantanamo are not sitting well with the Sept. 11 victims' relatives who sat stunned while two alleged terrorists declared they were proud of their role in the plot.

The U.S. military brought relatives of three Sept. 11 victims to Guantanamo to observe pretrial hearings in the case of five men charged in the plot who could get the death penalty if convicted.

It is a potentially momentous time for the military detention center. President-elect Barack Obama — whose inauguration is Tuesday — has said he will close it, and many observers and some officials here expect him to suspend the war crimes tribunals for accused terrorists and move the trials to the U.S.

The five invited relatives of 9/11 victims oppose such a move.

"Though the wheels are grinding, they are turning here and this place must remain open and justice must be served," Andrew Arias, whose brother, Adam, was killed in the attacks, told reporters at the base Monday.

"If not here, where?" said Arias, of South River, N.J. "Keep it open, let's get the job done."

The victims' relatives were in the courtroom audience as two Sept. 11 defendants, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, proclaimed their role in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

"We did what we did; we're proud of Sept. 11," said Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges.

The relatives of the victims said they were outraged by the comments, as well as Mohammed's complaints later about not being able to see his family

[Lynn Farris]

We have not had a major attack on US soil since 9-11 you are right.

But logic doesn't hold that is because of Gitmo or because we have used torture. It may be because we have better intelligence that we are paying attention to. Not ignoring reports labled Osama determined to attack within the US for example. It maybe because intelligence agencies are working together. It may be becuase we aren't allowing Saudi's in our country to take flying lessons where they don't care about landing planes.

It may be because we are giving them easier targets in Iraq. Lots of Americans have been targeted there and many have been killed or wounded. In fact I believe more have been killed in Iraq than were killed in 9-11.

Such a tragedy to compound the attack of 9/11 with an unrelated war that kills more.

It may be because we are doing a multitude of different things since 9/11 and we really don't know why there hasn't been another attack - we may have just been lucky.

My hearts go out the the relatives of the victims of 9/11. After waiting so long, to finally get the trials started and then to have Obama put a hold for 120 days on it I'm sure is frustrating. Of course they want and deserve closure. They want to have the people responsible brought to justice. So does Obama and so do almost all of the world. But we need to do it in such a way that the world doesn't percieve it as a kangaroo court. That the people need to be tried in such a way that we know that the people convicted are really the culprits of 9/11 not a patsy or a fall guy that perhaps the real terrorists of 9/11 sold to us.

An interesting article by an author who wrote The Guantanmo Files is attached.

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/01/29/how-cooking-for-the-taliban-gets-you-life-in-guantanamo/

He gives lots of examples. Some judges have said the evidence was as flimsy as Alice in Wonderland stuff. But one case in which the connection has been established is a Yemen man. Yes, it aided the terrorists, but is this really the dangerous mastermind type that we are so afraid of?

[quote]This ruling in particular cried out for an immediate overhaul of the “enemy combatantâ€

[Stephen Eisel]

But logic doesn't hold that is because of Gitmo or because we have used torture

Keeping “enemy combatantsâ€

[Stephen Eisel]

He gives lots of examples. Some judges have said the evidence was as flimsy as Alice in Wonderland stuff. But one case in which the connection has been established is a Yemen man. Yes, it aided the terrorists, but is this really the dangerous mastermind type that we are so afraid of?

Good point Lynn! This definitely shows that better procedures need to be put in place.

[Brian Pedaci]

Stephen, I'm justifiably more afraid of the muggers, thieves and rapists in our own neighborhood than I am of any terrorist. We have allowed the most frightening psychopaths in criminal history due process under the law - the people held in Gitmo should be accorded the same. If we have no evidence upon which to convict them - then under what pretenses are we holding them? Everyone's heard of at least one case where a known 'bad actor' was released due to an inability to build a convincing case. But that's the American way - the fairest and most enlightened justice system in the world, right? You can't punish people simply because they might commit a crime someday.

The Clinton admin made a fatal mistake by not classifying the terrorist who bombed the WTC in 1993 as enemy combatants.

The six men who actively and directly conspired and committed the 1993 bombing were all tried and are serving life sentences with no chance of parole. Are you thinking of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He was a financier of the scheme, but not part of the plan itself like he was for 9/11. It's not like he was tried and released on a technicality.

Furthermore, the entire premise behind this thread is faulty. The opinions of the right-wing lunatic quoted in the original post represent precisely the attitude that was repudiated in the polls this past November.

The constant refrain of "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" is a weak argument that supposes that there is only one means to the end, and that the ends justify the means. Is there any end to the principles or ideals you're willing to part with toward that end? Our country has faced much deadlier enemies, much greater risk and never lost sight of what makes America the beacon of liberty and freedom for the world. There's nothing unique about the dangers that face us today that requires us to forego our national identity.

[Mark Moran]

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.

That's from this article that appeared in the washington post entitled "Im Still Tortured By What I saw in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02242.html

People on both sides of this issue can trade competing anecdotes and quotes, to prove their points. There are many--the highly informed author of the above article included--who believe that our torture regime is harming our efforts at defeating terror That seems to be the point that people on other side wont see--they want to believe that this is your standard bleeding heart liberal cause when what it is about is an intelligent approach to defeating our enemies.

Here is a prediction: there is going to be another terrorist attack--maybe a big bad one--and Obama will be blamed for it by the usual megaphones regardless of what he does. We dont know that Bush's policies "kept us safe"--though there is evidence like that above that they certainly didnt keep our troops safe--anymore than we know that it was "Bush's fault" for not being prepared for 9/11. And we won't know that closing Gitmo and stopping torture is going to "lead to" the next terrorist attack--but that wont stop people from claiming that it did.

[ryan costa]

Obama displayed 'weakness' in Arab TV interview

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Defa ... ?id=401788

A Middle East expert says President Barack Obama showed weakness during a recent interview on an Arab television network.

President Obama granted his first formal television interview since being inaugurated to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya cable network. The president reportedly granted the interview in order to reach out to Arab leaders who have been wary at best of U.S. efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

l is founder and president of ACT! for America and the author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. She says the president conveyed a message that America is weak.

"The mistake that President Obama [made] is not only going on Al-Arabiya, but talking in a way that made the United States look bad by saying to them that America needs Brigitte Gabrie to listen instead of always dictating," says Gabriel.

Is Brigitte Gabrie saying the United States should always be dictating?
No one in the middle east believes the United States isn't overwhelmingly more powerful than whatever middle eastern country they come from. The 9/11 attackers had no expectation of doing serious damage to the United States. They 9/11 attackers attacked the United States...because it made them feel better.

The middle east is essentially doomed. just follow the population growth charts over the last 100 years. it was full of very old civilization. their populations weren't so low before because of newness. the most we can accomplish there is to keep things down to a dull roar until most of the oil is sucked out, and then leave as they collapse into civil strife and bands of roving hoards.