Al Qaeda is racist says Obama

[ArlJim78]

In the aftermath of the bombing in Uganda, Obama is ripping Al Qaeda for being racist. Read this Jake Tapper column (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/president-obama-white-house-al-qaeda-is-racist.html). (its gold jerry, gold)

Not only are they racist for not valuing the lives of Africans. oh no.
According to an administration official


"Additionally, U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs," the official said. "Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."



So the real problem is that Africans are not getting promoted to the higher levels of Al Qaeda, and are only used in the lower level positions like suicide bombers.

This is a brilliant new broadside against terrorism. We need to sic union leaders, the ACLU, the NAACP, the justice department, etc on Al Qaeda. We need to demand that they have greater representation of Africans in their management positions. We need so send Jesse and Sharpton over there to hold some demonstrations.

this injustice shall not stand!

[JustRalph]

everybody that doesn't lay down for Obama is racist......... didn't you know that?

[BluegrassProf]

To play devil's advocate in this case: read the comments rationally, as if you recognize that Islamist terrorism is largely about ethnicity and political conflict. Obama's not saying "al Qaeda is bad mostly 'cause it's racist;" he's talking about the exploitation of a particular ethnic population by a [multidimensionally] bad extremist organization.

Your quote above ("Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations") is a reference to al Qaeda members' perspective on that ethnic group in a particular part of the world; Obama is simply referencing that dynamic - al Qaeda does actually use ethnic and socioeconomic stratification to its advantage, something I was involved in researching for DHS in the early 2000's. This isn't rhetoric; it's the reality on the ground.

In an even larger sense, he's pointing about yet another reason for those with potentially radical ideologies (particularly for blacks in those relevant parts of the world - South Africa, for example, where the interview is taking place, and where Al Shabaab is a tangible threat) to oppose a group like al Qaeda, which often purports to represent those minorities against dominant political forces but in reality causes all sorts of obvious harm.

Tapper's commentary here isn't a particularly strong, and more importantly, seems to miss the point entirely. Not good.

[GameTheory]

But isn't criticizing Al Qaeda for being racist in their own "hiring practices" akin to criticizing Hitler for having a bad moustache? It may be a fact, but it is really the important thing to point out?

[BluegrassProf]

But isn't criticizing Al Qaeda for being racist in their own "hiring practices" akin to criticizing Hitler for having a bad moustache? It may be a fact, but it is really the important thing to point out?Not when viewed in light of the ethnic dynamic in places like the south of Africa (Somalia, South Africa, etc.). Hiring is recruitment, and when recruitment exploits race, it's hardly insignificant.

Again:
In an even larger sense, he's pointing about yet another reason for those with potentially radical ideologies (particularly for blacks in those relevant parts of the world - South Africa, for example, where the interview is taking place, and where Al Shabaab is a tangible threat) to oppose a group like al Qaeda, which often purports to represent those minorities against dominant political forces but in reality causes all sorts of obvious harm.Extremist groups - including al Qaeda, around the world, from South Africa to South America - use broad conflict like ethnic identity and ideologies to recruit membership; they consistently purport to represent oppressed ethnic and religious minorities, using the rhetoric of inclusion to gain legitimacy. Obama is pointing out the inherent fallacy, in that not only is no ideal goal of ethnic identification ever accomplished through these means, but that individuals from those ethnic groups are ultimately exploited towards all sorts of violent terroristic ends - it's not recognition or legitimization; it's exploitation. Importantly, he's doing so to a crowd for which this very fallacy is very relevant.

This is part of the problem with understanding terrorism around the world: it looks different wherever it takes root (even the appearance of a single group), and a lens of nuance and local context needs to be used to understand it when it appears. The World Cup attacks are a good example, where these factors play an important role.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Once you're hired in as a suicide bomber, it's pretty hard to advance. You either blow up and die, or you do a bad job with the suicide bombing and aren't worthy of a promotion. :rolleyes:

[prospector]

seems to me the justice dept is racist..
wonder if he'll stop NASA from promoting muslims?

there are a lot of white people, who belong to the tea party, finding out they are labeled as racists..i think the NAACP is racist by nature..

[ArlJim78]

the Ugandan bombing is not made worse by the fact that it happend in Africa It isn't special or different than the bombings in Europe, America or Asia. it doesn't help to bring in racial identity politics to the equation. no amount of nuance or local knowledge changes things one iota.

Al Qaeda operation is based on exploitation, first and formemost they exploit young Muslim men and women. To say that Al Qaeda doesn't value the lives of Africans implies that they value the lives of others. they don't. Why doesn't Obama complain about Al Qaeda exploiting Muslims?

objecting to this incident because it occurred in Africa and challenging Al Qaeda based on exploitation of Africans is just wrong, and it implies that other targets (races?) might be more acceptable as long as the recruitment process was fair and nobody was exploited along the way.

[TJDave]

i think the NAACP is racist by nature..

Can you even say 'colored people' without getting arrested?

[Robert Goren]

Racist is the nicest thing I have say Al Qaeda. I can't imagine any other American being different.

[bigmack]

I blame television for this deep hatred Al Kytee's have towards us. It has a whole lot less to do with religion than the fact they found out, through TV, we got a whole pile of stuff and they're resentful they ain't got no stuff.

If we could just put in place a campaign to let them know we don't have all that much stuff they'd feel better about themselves not having much in the way of stuff. :cool:

MvgN5gCuLac

[woodtoo]

Obama is about race,al qaeda is more about equal opportunity killing and
hireing.They do have one thing in common though,furthering their agendas.
But it begs the question.Would he rather they target people other than blacks?

[BluegrassProf]

the Ugandan bombing is not made worse by the fact that it happend in Africa It isn't special or different than the bombings in Europe, America or Asia. it doesn't help to bring in racial identity politics to the equation. no amount of nuance or local knowledge changes things one iota.

Al Qaeda operation is based on exploitation, first and formemost they exploit young Muslim men and women. To say that Al Qaeda doesn't value the lives of Africans implies that they value the lives of others. they don't. Why doesn't Obama complain about Al Qaeda exploiting Muslims?

objecting to this incident because it occurred in Africa and challenging Al Qaeda based on exploitation of Africans is just wrong, and it implies that other targets (races?) might be more acceptable as long as the recruitment process was fair and nobody was exploited along the way.Ah, fairly exemplary of how the writer manages to miss the point/problem at hand, and to a lesser extent, of the tendency of the public to greatly oversimplify the very real problem of transnational terrorism. :ThmbUp:

Certainly, al Qaeda survives through exploitation, but believe it or not, there are power structures even in extremist organizations, and more broadly, within large populations sharing similar geopolitical ideologies (it's very difficult, in fact, to label individual terrorists as actors driven specifically by strict Islamist ideologies, let alone place them under the al Qaeda organizational umbrella - the WC bombings are a perfect example, where we [the public and politicians alike] tend to overgeneralize as you appear to do above), and within the geographical regions where extremism has taken a tangible hold, outside the groups themselves. Particularly within splinter organizations, these power structures are often drawn along ethnic lines, which leads to the disparate exploitation of certain ethnic groups. It's really very simple: it's not about "equal opportunity;" it's about citing the fallacy of recruiting based on a false notion of representation that ultimately leads to exploitation. They recruit promising representation of the oppressed minority (or those perceiving themselves as opressed), using ethnic identity to build numbers - ethnic identity is an easier recruiting tool than, for example, religious extremism, which is considerably more "niche." What Obama is pointing out is the irony in this notion: recruits are hardly represented, let alone the cause(s) they hope to promote. The racism manifests as violent exploitation.

Despite your claim that he and his administration does not, the current president - like the previous president, the one before him (to an extent) and every legitimate world leader on the planet - has lamented the exploitation of young, poor, easily-influenced muslims by Islamist groups...in fact, it's so commonplace as to have become normal. In this case, Obama's addressing a particular population, and that he's speaking to Africans shouldn't come as even a slight surprise. This is hardly praise of Obama or anyone else specifically...it's simple recognition of the obvious.

Of course the bombing in Uganda isn't "worse" than any other incident; it's simply a.) undertaken by a specific group, b.) in a specific geographical location, marked by c.) specific political and ethnic conflict. To ignore those realities is at absolute best ignorant, and and worse, dangerous. And yes, of course it is ABSOLUTELY important to understand the actual roots of terrorism in every situation all over the world - to think otherwise is so every-lovin' far beyond absurd, the mind reels at the prospect. When ethnic conflict plays a role, of course it's important to understand, and to address in every possible way - from focused, efficient, effective security and military intervention to domestic and foreign relations campaigns to address the issues at hand. Even the most militant recognize the value of speaking to hearts and minds, winning the war of rhetoric while the powers that be win the battle on the ground.

In this case, Obama isn't objecting to the bombings moreso than any other simply because they happened in Africa - that's a baseless conclusion - he's speaking to people in South Africa about incidents a relative stone's throw from their very own border. More notably, he's doing so through the lens of what's actually going on in that part of the world: ethnic conflict. Now, make no mistake: you can choose to call that irrelevant as often and as loudly as you'd like. Your call. But it doesn't make it any less bizarre.

In the grandest sense, your post is somewhat representative of the tendency of the general public to simply throw hands in the air and yell, "AL QAEDA TOTALLYZ EVIL MUSLIMS LUV KORANS HATE 'MERICA AND KITTENS KILL 'EM ALL!" The public simplifies the issue to its most easily-digested denominator - "Islamists are pure evil" - while ignoring the very real, very tangible social, political, economic, geographic, and ethnic roots of extremism. That's not touchy-feely; in fact, far from it...it's reality. It's the clear sociopolitical conflicts behind evil acts. It's terrorism for you, like it or not.

My work with DHS early post-9/11 was highly cooperative...we worked heavily with both local and federal law enforcement in the study of, and tactical focus on, transnational and domestic terrorism and terrorist groups; I've advised agencies, as they advised us (it certainly never hurt that I had a background in LE myself). To be sure, law enforcement actors at both levels, then and now, would the very first to dismiss the notion that, "it doesn't help to bring in racial identity politics to the equation. no amount of nuance or local knowledge changes things one iota." That's simply absurd - that's like saying you don't need to know what the virus behind AIDS is in order to fight it, or to know the body and the history of the person who's got it.

Interestingly, this is also why there tends to be so much frustration on the part of LE officials when focusing on terrorism problems: the misperceptions of the public, reinforced by politicians and their misinformed sound bytes, get in the way of doing any damned good. We fight the problem politically rather than tactically, and what does it get us? Bombs in Times Square, as predicted. As usual, let the experts who actually understand the problem fight it to the best of their ability. A shocking proposition.

Apologies for the novel. Call it a compulsion. ;)

[JustRalph]

I think that Jim and BlueGrassProf may be speaking of two different things.

Jim more of the larger picture and the Prof of the actual recruiting process itself?

Somewhere in the middle, the two meet.........interesting discussion. The proof is in the pudding though. No matter why.........the end result is a really bad outcome i.e. bombs and such going off.

A couple of different organizations with a couple of different motives for causing terrorism depending on where the recruiting occurs. I can see the nuance and the different motives employed based on the country/culture where the recruiting is taking place, but in the end the same result is the common goal of the "bad guys" no matter who they be or where they come from. And more often than not the common goal is to kill Americans. Therefore I can understand the intricacies of what is going on, in the long run I don't really care why. I know enough to know the outcome.

Policy makers can try to deal with the where's and why's............but so far after about 40 years no policy maker or government official has been able to change the narrative or gain any real traction. So instead of closing the hole where the mice are sneaking in the house and wreaking havoc, we are still just killing the mice as there heads pop up, so to speak. We may never find the hole in the house.........but for now wiping out the smaller nests in a proactive manner is good enough for me.

[shouldacoulda]

It sounds like they are trying to say that terrorists are unfair. Well duh! While we have a high unemployment problem, high foreclosure rate, commercial real estate glut and an ecological disaster of epic, global proportion, it's nice to know our president has the time to address the treatment of people dumb enough to strap explosives to themselves and set them off. It sounds like the groundwork is being laid to export what industry we have left in this country to exploit these people in the name of capitalism rather than terrorism. After Blackhawk down and the way our troops were treated in Somalia I could give a rats behind about that place. But that's just my opinion.