Al Qaeda Frustrated by Pro-Obama Media Bias

**Lemur** · 11-26-2008, 20:09

Looks like whining about unfair pro-Obama media coverage isn't restricted to disgruntled Time magazine editors. Turns out Al Qaeda's #2 dude doesn't much like the coverage he's getting after calling Obama a "house slave."

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in -- including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.

Meanwhile, the Antichrist/Muslim/Socialist/White-hating President-elect is winning over some conservatives with his cabinet picks.

As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments , most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain’s, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for “neo-liberalism” which is not so different in many respects from “neo-conservativism”. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.

Combined with the moderation of the economic team that Obama has just named, I would say his administration already far exceeds expectations, and he hasn’t even taken office yet.

Bias, I say! Bias!

**rvg** · 11-26-2008, 20:14

Originally Posted by Lemur

]As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments , most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain’s, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for “neo-liberalism” which is not so different in many respects from “neo-conservativism”. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.

Agreed. So far, Obama has showed an open-minded, no-nonsense approach. I'm beginning to believe that his victory is a good thing.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 11-26-2008, 20:18

We will see a backlash against Obama after he blows most of his promises. Until then and until FOCA, I'm fine with his picks and direction.

He is and has always been a Capitalist as evident in his cabinet picks. He is a hawkish/conventional style military pragmatist. He is much more of the same than most people want to admit - and that is fine.

He is pretty much a half-black Jed Bartlett; a Radical social policy coupled with a traditional American economic and military agenda. Jed Bartlet being more religious for personal faith. When Obama starts campaigning for his second term he will start going to church again.

Obama's election was always going to be a better thing than McCain being elected for most issues. That guy had no business going for the White House. An old man who didn't understand economics and couldn't articulate his social positioning? What the hell?

**LittleGrizzly** · 11-26-2008, 20:25

He is much more of the same than most people want to admit - and that is fine.

I distinctly remember trying to make that point like a million times, i was drowned out by the cries of socialist and marxist though....

He's going to be a bit different, more international coperation, softer tone (no more with us or against us) but not really a whole world of difference from what Mccain would have done... imo

**rory_20_uk** · 11-26-2008, 20:36

Surprise...

Somehow different - with all the usual faces.

But AQ's man was a moron to make such a comment - who was it trying to impress? If he'd flattered the guy that would have arguably upset many more people as it's oft been said he's soft on unilateral "pre-emptive defence".

**Fragony** · 11-26-2008, 21:41

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

We will see a backlash against Obama after he blows most of his promises.

Which is bound to happen, but this particular backlash could just destroy the racial dimension. The left is left with nothing right now, good luck to them. It's kinda funny, after all the probama wardrums euro lefties now have to defend his policies, the silence screams, a complete media lockdown to prevent people from having doubts about socialism. As it turns out that they are racists the only thing that was important was his skin which is kinda amusing.

**Lemur** · 11-26-2008, 21:50

Originally Posted by Fragony

Which is bound to happen, but this particular backlash could just destroy the racial dimension. The left is left with nothing right now, good luck to them. It's kinda funny, after all the probama wardrums euro lefties now have to defend his policies, the silence screams, a complete media lockdown to prevent people from having doubts about socialism. As it turns out that they are racists the only thing that was important was his skin which is kinda amusing.

Okay, my tired little brain is trying to decode this with little success.

What "racial dimension"? What do you mean by that? "The left is left with nothing now," how so? How does the Presidential election in the U.S.A. destroy the global "left"? Could you unpack that a little?

"Euro lefties now have to defend his policies": what policies? What are you talking about? The only "policies" he's made so far are tentative cabinet appointments that still need to be ratified by Congress. But the President-elect has no actual power to enact anything. Last I checked, George W. Bush is still our President.

"A complete media lockdown to prevent people from having doubts about socialism." Okay, this one completely eludes me. It looks as though Obama is going to be a pragmatist/centrist, and this is causing a media lockdown ... to prevent a collapse in confidence about ... socialism? I'm lost. Help me. How is the election of a centrist a body blow to confidence in socialism?

"It turns out that they are racists": say wha? Who's "them" in this sentence? And how are "they" expressing their racism? By praising Obama? And now, um, with their confidence in socialism falling, they're going to, um .... um .... you really have lost me.

**Fragony** · 11-26-2008, 22:04

Was talking as a european sorry that was a bit of a monologue. There has been a genuine Obama hype here, Obama who is vastly more rightwing then anything we have here, he was everywhere 24/7. But, simple survey showed that most of his greatest supporters, which include the most vocal, didn't have a single clue about his ideas, it really is a racial issue here that a black man was elected, that is just how it is.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 11-26-2008, 22:16

Originally Posted by Fragony

Was talking as a european sorry that was a bit of a monologue. There has been a genuine Obama hype here, Obama who is vastly more rightwing then anything we have here, he was everywhere 24/7. But, simple survey showed that most of his greatest supporters, which include the most vocal, didn't have a single clue about his ideas, it really is a racial issue here that a black man was elected, that is just how it is.

And that was one of the positive components he had going for him on this side of the pond as well. The USA was ready to get over this old hurdle of ours. Regardless of how Obama does, a good bit of that racism stigma is now gone....and GOOD riddance to it.

So far, we have seen names on the NatSec side of things who are experienced and carry good credentials and reputations. I'll admit its encouraging. State and the Domestic agenda side are pretty classic Dem -- but it would be hard to expect them NOT to be. Economic team seems left of center, but not a crew with "lets tear it all down" in mind by any means. Overall, the competence of the group is pretty solid.

However, a caution with cabinet appointments. Everyone thoght Powell's centrism/modest liberalism would help balance out the Bush Admin's more assertive neo-cons. Didn't work that way though, did it?

In other words, we need to give him his chance, but let's not go assuming what his policies will be until he shows us what he intends his policies to be.

**Divinus Arma** · 12-02-2008, 07:13

Originally Posted by Lemur

Looks like whining about unfair pro-Obama media coverage isn't restricted to disgruntled Time magazine editors. Turns out Al Qaeda's #2 dude doesn't much like the coverage he's getting after calling Obama a "house slave."

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in -- including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.

Meanwhile, the Antichrist/Muslim/Socialist/White-hating President-elect is winning over some conservatives with his cabinet picks.

As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments , most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain. (Jim Jones is an old friend of McCain’s, and McCain almost certainly would have asked Gates to stay on as well.) This all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign. His appointments suggest that, if anything, his administration will have a Reapolitiker, rather than a liberal, bent, although Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for “neo-liberalism” which is not so different in many respects from “neo-conservativism”. Both, for instance, support humanitarian interventions in places like Darfur and Bosnia.

Combined with the moderation of the economic team that Obama has just named, I would say his administration already far exceeds expectations, and he hasn’t even taken office yet.

Bias, I say! Bias!

Your not doing your side any favors with tripe like this. I voted for the big O, but do I really need to hear you link Al Qaeda and the GOP in whining about the media? The answer is No.

**Lemur** · 12-02-2008, 14:46

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Your not doing your side any favors with tripe like this. I voted for the big O, but do I really need to hear you link Al Qaeda and the GOP in whining about the media? The answer is No.

Show me where I did so. I compared AQ's whining to a Time Magazine editor, not the GOP. The rest is beyond my control.

Is AQ complaining about media bias? Yes they are. Has the GOP whined about it at length? Yes they have. Does that make them comparable? Let's think about it. Most members of Al Qaeda have two feet, and most Republicans have two feet. Al Qaeda uses language, and Republicans use language. I guess they must be equivalent! Maybe they're even the same people!

I guess I'm an evil, unfair Lemur for even bringing this topic up. Anyone reporting on AQ's media bias whining must be a real tool.