Obama’s Speech on Terrorism

I liked Obama’s speech on terrorism. People are criticizing him for not offering any concrete steps to defeat the Islamic State but the truth is that there are no concrete steps he could offer. Even if Obama decided to send tens of thousands troops to Syria and even if those comparatively unmotivated troops could defeat the organization of passionate fanatics, so what? Tomorrow, a new Islamic State would spring up someplace else.

You can’t defeat an idea until the idea defeats itself. Tomorrow and the day after there will be more Farooks, Maliks and Jihadi Toliks (that’s the nickname of the Russian ISIS head chopper) whether Syria even exists or not.

I also liked Obama’s call to Muslims to start doing something about this whole mess. Since the San Bernardino massacre, I read 4 articles by people who identified as Muslims. All articles were pouty in tone and transmitted the same boring message of “But why do we have to.” What purpose the authors think these pieces served other than letting them feel self-righteous is a mystery.

During Russia’s war in Ukraine, I sought out every opportunity to speak, explain, cajole, convince, and try to make the story reach people. If Ukrainians started organizing mass murders all over the world, I wouldn’t think it beneath myself to provide analysis, offer insights, and explain, explain, explain while apologizing at every turn. So Obama is right, the Muslim community is not managing to win the information war. And from the recent Ukrainian experience, I know that it’s not that hard to win it if everyone puts their mind to it.

Overall, it was a good, calm speech that is so unlike the Creepy Lizard’s fantasies about dropping nuclear bombs on Syria.

And people who want concrete solutions should stop waiting for the Nanny State to solve this problem for them. The Nanny State has left the building. This is now for all of us to figure out.

19 thoughts on “Obama’s Speech on Terrorism

  1. “You can’t defeat an idea until the idea defeats itself.”

    Well, total war worked pretty well against the Nazis and Imperial Japan — and in a mere four years.

    I didn’t watch Obama’s speech. I was 40 miles from home, eating the equivalent of about three full meals at the local Austrian Society’s annual Christmas dinner. Apparently, Obama at least admitted out loud that the U.S. is “at war with terrorism” — even if he still couldn’t name the terrorists.

    By the way, Happy Hannukkah, if you observe it.

    Like

    1. In the case of Nazi Germany it took six years. Americans were only around in any significant capacity for the last four, not counting Lend-Lease.

      Also it worked, true… at the cost of millions of deaths and half of Europe either being taken over by the Soviets outright (Baltics states- why my maternal grandfather couldn’t go home) or made into satellites.

      Like

      1. Well, the fighting in WWII actually started in 1931 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria. My point is that the war was won fairly quickly after vast force was finally applied in a decisive, total-war manner.

        As for the consequences, what would have been the alternative to American involvement? Still millions dead in Europe as the Germans and Soviets fought it out, and a probable stalemate with the USSR ultimately controlling the eastern half of the continent, and Nazi Germany maintaining power in the western half.

        Like

  2. “unlike the Creepy Lizard’s fantasies about dropping nuclear bombs on Syria.”

    “We will carpet bomb them into oblivion,” Cruz said. “I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”

    I didn’t hear even the suggestion of nuclear war in Cruz’s statement. Conventional incendiary bombs will make sand glow, before it fuses harmlessly into glass.

    My bet’s still on Marco Rubio, but I might vote for Ted Cruz over Hillary, if he keeps talking common sense like this.

    Like

    1. That’s what I like about you, you want to defend genocidal behavior whilst remaining a pious devotee of Jahweh.

      Like

      1. Have people actually read the Bible? Jahweh is a strict, often violent God very much given to genocide and his prophets, Jesus and Muhammad, were never opposed to violence, and that’s putting it very mildly. Is the expression “Biblical ire” not known to anybody?

        This is all irrespective of the well-known fact that Ted Cruz is a crazed lizard.

        Like

        1. The only displays of anger and violence that are documented in the N.T. are the withering of the fig tree that had no fruit because it was not the right season, and the chastisement of the money changers in the Temple. The former is hard to defend, even theologically speaking.

          Of the latter episode, I had a discussion with a Jew who defended the money changers being there as in keeping with cultural practices around the world, even when I pointed out that they could’ve been a quarter-mile away, which is a 5 minute walk at a pace of 20 minutes a mile.

          Also, the quote about living and dying by the sword is also N.T, IINM.

          Like

          1. Jesus personally beat up the money-changers and, of course, never renounced the God of Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah, Noah, etc.

            I would not feel any affinity for a religion that did not have rage at its core. 🙂

            Like

        2. Re. that first paragraph: I actually used to beleive in some of that stuff and tried to explain it away to make it seem less harsh. No longer.

          I’ll take your word on the second paragraph.

          Like

      2. Er, just to clear up an apparent misconception: I’m NOT Jewish! I was raised as a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian), but have been an atheist all my long adult life. 🙂 My hawkish political views have no relation to my (lack of) any religion.

        I went to a CHRISTMAS dinner party (which just happened to be held on the first night of Hanukkah) because I belong to an Austrian Society, and the vast majority of Austrians are Christians and celebrate that holiday.

        I said “Happy Hanukkah” to Clarissa (and any other readers who accept the greeting), because Clarissa is clearly Jewish by heritage.

        “Dreidel” was the name of my first cat. He was a purebred Siamese, and probably not Jewish either.

        Like

        1. “I’m NOT Jewish! I was raised as a mainstream Protestant (Presbyterian), but have been an atheist all my long adult life.”

          Careful, you will make people’s heads explode. 🙂

          Like

      1. This cycle, the pick is especially horrible. It’s a clown cart, literally. And for the first time I’m starting to realize why some people say that clowns are scary.

        Like

  3. “Muslims to start doing something about this whole mess. Since the San Bernardino massacre, I read 4 articles by people who identified as Muslims. All articles were pouty in tone and transmitted the same boring message of “But why do we have to.””

    Islam has a private morality and ultimately what goes on in society at large is of less interest than what goes on in one’s own head. This allows people to be pious and ignore horrible social dysfunction at the same time (the US South has something similar where morality linked to personal behavior allowed southern whites to maintain a self-image of virtue while ignoring the horrible injustices going on).

    Like

    1. We all know that I’m very sympathetic and have no bad feelings about Islam. But even I get very annoyed with the pouty articles, TV interviews, etc. People who are not sympathetic to begin with are going to have an even greater rejection. I’d think this should be obvious. Yet the poutiness continues. What the purpose of the endless “It’s so hard to be Muslim in the West” (as if it were super easy in the East) is I can’t say.

      This is a huge failing on the part of Muslim intellectuals who are letting down their community in a big way.

      Like

Leave a reply to cliff arroyo Cancel reply