Obama: "House Negro"?

So says -- Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In an audio message which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, al-Zawahri said that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X. He called Obama a "house negro."

He added that Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

The audio plays over still pictures of al-Zawahri, Malcolm X praying, and Obama with Jewish leaders at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.

The tape also criticizes Obama for his position on Israel, stating that this proves his "stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims".

Al-Zawahri also urged Muslims to continue attacks against "criminal America".

The 11 minute and 23 second message is the first public comment by an al-Qaida about Obama's electoral victory.

Well, at least the right people hate our new president!  What will the "he's a Muslim/terrorist" people make of this?  It's all just a front, a fakeout?

Comments

[PatHMV]

Good questions, amba. What I want to know also is how the people on the left will react, the ones who were so sure that if only we would elect Obama (or some other good, safe, liberal Democrat), the world would stop hating us and we'd all be safer somehow.

[realpc]

If they liked him, then I would be worried. I think that, aside from his understandable concern with civil rights for minorities, Obama is a normal, moderate, patriotic American. Won't the extreme left be disappointed.

[Melinda]

Not so sure that nutjob Islamic extremists constitute "the world," but I'm also not so sure how far on "the left" I am.

[Dave]

Speaking as someone from the fairly extreme (Chomskian anarchist) left, I never expected that electing a saner, more tolerant, and multiculturally aware president would make the U.S. any less hated by those determined to hate us - nor did I expect his presidency to make any fundamental shifts in American foreign policy. But I did and do expect the worst excesses of the neo-cons to cease, including torture and extraordinary rendition of terrorism suspects, which have furnished radical Islamists with such a great recruiting tool. I am also encouraged by Obama's apparent reverence for the U.S. Constitution. It would be nice to see our civil rights restored, and maybe even see some power shift from the executive to the legislative branch. (Imagine: diplomacy and defense entrusted to Congress! There's a radical concept.)

[amba]

Pat: another excellent question.

[amba]

Dave: hello! You sound pretty sane and tolerant yourself for a Chomskian anarchist. I'm going to take the liberty of quoting you to provide some context:

I’ve always feared conformity: the chanting, the pledging of allegiances, the mob with its own cruel agenda. I guess I’m a product of the American individualist myth that says a social collective can never be other than a Borg, threatening to erase all differences and obliterate even the impulse toward independence. Much preferable, in my mind, to court outlandishness and be obvious and erratic as a planet among the anonymous stars.

[Meade]

He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."

I know that's why I voted for Obama. Because of President George Bush's policies, our military has suffered a humiliating defeat and, according to John Murtha, Harry Reid and Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida In Iraq obviously reigns supreme.

So I voted for the servile house slave who won't stand up to his white masters who's policies have led to such disaster in Iraq.

Wow! Ayman sure has my number.

[Tom Strong]

Pat - I am unaware of anyone who's actually claimed al-Qaeda would stop hating us if a Democrat were elected. Would you point out a few examples?

[realpc]

"as someone from the fairly extreme (Chomskian anarchist) left"

The Chomskian anarchist left is not fairly extreme, it is not extremely extremely. It is utterly bogus, devoid of rationality.

The only reason people trust and revere Chomsky is because decades ago he had a common sense idea regarding linguistics. That made him look like a genius compared to the prevailing bizarre theory of the day.

That was the last time he ever flirted with common sense, but he is still revered because traditions tend to continue. His followers always mention that Chomsky is the most famous linguist in the world, because that, supposedly, means that every wacko thing he says must be true. Most of his linguistics ideas don't make any sense, except for the one that made him famous.

However, I do think Chomsky does the world a service by digging up any dirt he can find on US foreign policy -- and there is plenty. Yes, we should know about it.

But digging up dirt, and never or almost never acknowledging virtues, gives his worshipers, I mean followers, a very distorted impression of reality.

And an obsession with digging up dirt does not make Chomsky a political genius. He does not have any ideas about how societies should be organized. He does not seem to know the first thing about human nature or politics or economics.

There are millions of crazies following Chomsky, most of them probably with very little actual knowledge of his opinions. It's very cool to say you are a Chomskian anarchist, and even knowing who he is makes you cooler than average.

[PatHMV]

Tom, I'm not going to go trudging through the depths of the internet for such. I have no doubt they exist, at about the same level and frequency as self-proclaimed Republicans who actually claimed that Obama was a Muslim or terrorist.

[Danny]

Huh?? I am stunned by Pat's question and agree with the people who said that when people have expressed the somewhat naive hope that an Obama administration might lead to "the world" not "hating" America as much, they sure as HELL weren't talking about the officials of al-Qaeda! Do you really believe that the "people on the left" want to be liked by al-Qaeda?? Because if you do, then your view of the left is so skewed, so beyond what I thought it was that I'm left speechless.

I admit I was very relieved to read al-Zawahri's stupid statements about Obama. Can you imagine how much more trouble he could have caused by coming out in seeming support of the President-elect?

[Elyas]

Pat, you're battling a straw man. There's a difference between:

"The world will hate us less and we will be safer when Obama is President."

and

"The world will stop hating us and we will be safe when Obama is President."

[amba]

I have the impression that Zawahiri isn't directing his comments to the likes of us, though. He's trying to divide the black community. He's obviously studied up on American racial politics, and he'd like to recruit a fifth column among some of the more angry and irreconcilable types, particularly Black Muslims, but I'm sure a Rev. Wright would do in a pinch.

[amba]

Danny and Elyas ar right, I think. No one sane on the left imagines or desires that al Qaeda might stop hating us. It's legitimate to think, though, that some ordinary people for whom Bush would have served as a jihadi recruiting poster may not find one in Obama.

[amba]

One thing about al-Zawahiri's attitude toward Obama: his father was Muslim, so he's probably considered an apostate by these fanatics -- something even worse than a kufr, a non-Muslim. But I do wonder whether that will impress the average run of young Muslim men from whom al-Q recruits (or whom it inspires to self-recruit). Some, sure. And "some" is bad enough. But not as many.

[realpc]

[Do you really believe that the "people on the left" want to be liked by al-Qaeda?? ]

That would be bad for your image. But the far anarchist left doesn't hate America any less than al-Qaeda does. Of course, the far left's vision of utopia is very different from al-Qaeda's.

[Elyas]

Amba, I don't think he's directing his comments at the black community or any Americans, really. He's speaking to his troops, and his potential supporters. He wants them to know he hasn't gone soft, and more importantly, he's trying to quickly dismiss any doubts they may have about whether they should still hate American policy enough to fight and die over it. If doubt begins to creep in and his followers wonder if maybe this is a different America (maybe just an average, rather than a Great, Satan) he loses them.

Don't be surprised to hear him eventually just come out and say that Obama is no different, or even worse, than Bush.

[Tom Strong]

I think the attempt here to claim Malcolm X as one of his own, while obviously unsupportable on the facts, supports amba's thesis.

[amba]

I don't know if it's amusing or chilling that he knows the phrase "house negro."

[michael Reynolds]

Elyas:

Pat, you're battling a straw man. There's a difference between:

"The world will hate us less and we will be safer when Obama is President."

and

"The world will stop hating us and we will be safe when Obama is President."

Straw men are all they have. The inability of right-wingers to come to grips with actual Obama supporters as opposed to their fantasy versions of same is seeming more and more pathological. The fact that a clear majority of the American people rejected the GOP and their ideology has left them shattered, wandering like mumbling street people through the wreckage of their little world.

[realpc]

"a clear majority of the American people rejected the GOP and their ideology"

How can you possibly know if their ideology was rejected? First of all, it's hard to say exactly what either party's ideology is. And it's absurd to think Americans have now rejected every aspect of anything that could be considered conservative ideology.

Barak Obama doesn't reject everything that might be called conservative ideology -- far from it! So how can you claim that the American public rejects it. Obama states very explicitly his beliefs in various ideas and values we normally consider conservative.

I can't believe how haphazard political thinking has become in America. Just because the majority voted for a guy who belongs to the Democratic party, we have all suddenly become blazing progressives?

Most Americans who voted for Obama are probably like me -- moderates of either party, or independents, who appreciate his lack of fanatical nonsensical extremism.

No surprise, though, that you are getting exactly the wrong message from this election.

[Danny]

That would be bad for your image. But the far anarchist left doesn't hate America any less than al-Qaeda does. Of course, the far left's vision of utopia is very different from al-Qaeda's.

Bad for MY image? Who are you talking to? Surely you would agree that there is a huge distinction to be made between people on the left in this country and these "far anarchist left" lunatics you mention who you claim hate America as much as al-Qaeda! I would certainly never ascribe the ideology of far right extremist groups such as white supremacists, survivalist milita nuts, or Timothy McVeigh's cohorts as somehow representing the views of the mainstream American Right!

As my 13-year-old daughter would say: "Chillax!" The American Left does not want to destroy this country. They love it every bit as much as your friends on the right do.

[PatHMV]

Elyas... if you think Zwahiri's remarks are aimed at only his own terrorist fighters, you haven't been paying much attention. Al Qaeda has tried for a long time to monkey with the politics of Western nations. Remember the train bombing in Spain timed to influence their elections? A great many of their messages show a fairly detailed knowledge of internal American political issues, and attempt to exploit those political divisions.

As for my larger comment and "straw men," please go back and read my reply to Tom. I equate the right wingers who actually believed that Obama is a secret terrorist to the left wingers who believe that electing Obama would make all of our foreign problems go away. I didn't say that any of YOU commenters on this site believe that, or that it was a general believe of sane Democrats. It's not. However, NEITHER is it a general believe of sane Republicans that Obama was actually a terrorist or a secret Muslim.

Annie posted a somewhat rhetorical question about right-wingnuts and their reaction to Al Qaeda's announcement. I posted a similar question about the reaction of left-wingnuts. If there's any strawman-ing going on here, it's the suggestion by the folks on the left that the right-wingnuts are somehow more representative of Republicans and conservatives in general than the left-wingnuts are of Democrats and progressives in general.

[Elyas]

Pat, I don't doubt that Al Qaeda has and will try to influence domestic politics. But I don't think that driving wedges in the black community is their biggest concern right now. There are cracks in their own internal structure, and re-vilifying the U.S. will be important to keeping their organization together in the short term. If they lose that momentum, their organization is in trouble.

I see what you're saying about only referring to the far left and will grant that comparison. However, the first two comments in this thread went way off topic to attack the far left. That's what I mean by straw man. You're substituting an easy, unrepresentative target to either score points on the more generalized left or just take a swing for the hell of it.

What we're debating in this country is essentially a left-of-center versus a right-of-center approach to governing. Yet all too often people on both sides direct their attacks at the "far left/right" because, frankly, it's an easier target. That's why there was such a frenzy to paint Obama as a radical liberal. Disputing radical ideas is easy, but in this election in particular, the Republican party couldn't muster the intellectual fortitude to explain why voters should prefer right-of-center over left-of-center politics.

[karen]

"... and he'd like to recruit a fifth column among some of the more angry and irreconcilable types, particularly Black Muslims, but I'm sure a Rev. Wright would do in a pinch."

But, amba!! Rev Wright is a Christian- why, the likes of spud would feel so much more welcome in Wright's church than the Catholic Church any day. You know, that Catholic Church- it's against everything, so intolerant; it is!(tongue caresses cheek persuasively).

[PatHMV]

Elyas... perhaps the confusion stems from sloppy drafting on my part. I intended that to read "Those on the left who..." That is, my comment was intended to be aimed only at those on the left who held that belief. I in no way intended to assert that all those on the left held such a belief. I think a fair reading of my comment makes that clear, but in re-reading, I see where I could have been clearer.

[realpc]

" The American Left does not want to destroy this country. They love it every bit as much as your friends on the right do."

My friends on the right? I don't even know anyone on the "right." Since when does not being far left mean being the opposite?

[realpc]

"he Republican party couldn't muster the intellectual fortitude to explain why voters should prefer right-of-center over left-of-center politics."

I doubt anyone could muster than kind of intellectual fortitude, since it would be impossible to say exactly what the difference is between right-of-center and left-of-center.

[realpc]

" The American Left does not want to destroy this country. They love it every bit as much as your friends on the right do."

They DO want to destroy capitalism, which is the necessary foundation of individual freedom and Democracy. And if you don't believe me, ask Barak Obama, maybe you would believe him.

[Ally]

They want to destroy capitalism, eh? Fascinating. If you could spell Barack Obama's first name correctly I might take the comment more seriously.

[realpc]

"They want to destroy capitalism, eh?"

Yes, the current "far left" is defined partly by anti-capitalism. If you don't know that Chomsky is an anti-capitalist, then you don't know anything about the far left. Or much else, probably, even if you can spell Barack.

[michael Reynolds]

53% of American voters voted for Obama. .005% of American voters have any idea who the hell Noam Chomsky is. But of course the tinfoil hat brigade prefers to rant about some fictional lefties rather than explain how they managed to go from "permanent majority" to discredited has-beens in a historical heartbeat.

[Melinda]

Okay, then I'm definitely not on the far left. I love capital! Lay some capital on me, baby! May the Lord smite me with it...and may I never recover!

[Meade]

99.005% of American voters don't really have any idea who the hell Barack Obama is.

[michael Reynolds]

Meade:

Sure we do. As much as we ever know any president-elect.

[Meade]

The last president-elect nearly this unknown to voters was Jimmy Carter. Michael: You bought a pig in a poke and the cat will soon be out of the bag.

[michael Reynolds]

Meade:

Well, so far he's done nothing that surprised me. (For good or ill.) When you can correctly predict an individual's actions it follows that you have a fairly accurate appraisal of said individual.

But let's put it to the test. I said Obama would choose a moderate cabinet. Holder and Daschle, so far. A partner at Covington and Burling and the former Senate majority leader. Rahm Emmanuel as chief. A hard-ass fixer known for shepherding NAFTA. Not a Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers to be found anywhere.

He's apparently tapped Hillary for State. Another wild-eyed radical.

And he rescued Lieberman. A mistake in my opinion, but not exactly evidence that Obama's a mole for the Weather Underground.

So, going way out on a limb here, I predict that the rest of his cabinet will be: center-left to center-right, technocrats, old hands, heavy-hitters.

Now, you can either conclude that it's all a vast bluff to conceal his radical plans. In which case you'd be a crazy person and there's a shopping cart piled high with all your possessions in your future.

Or you can conclude that Obama is a moderate, a pragmatist with a nice touch of ruthlessness. Which would mean that I was right about him and all you grassy knoll paranoids were wrong.

My second prediction: I expect you and Simon and Pat will resist that last conclusion and slide ever further into Oliver Stone territory.

[Meade]

Michael: It's a good thing you're such a talented comic writer. Otherwise you'd be just one more run-of-the-mill adorable asshole.

[Spud]

But, amba!! Rev Wright is a Christian- why, the likes of spud would feel so much more welcome in Wright's church than the Catholic Church any day.

Karen, just what do you mean by the "likes" of me? It's sounds negative, like in bad. It's true that I like Rev Wright and think he's a good American and Christian, and would feel much more welcome in his church than yours. At least in Wright's church, I would be able to take communion, and would not have to take some sort of test to see if I qualify.

[michael Reynolds]

Meade:

Thanks.

[karen]

Spud-
i said ~the likes of you- so that you wouldn't feel all that singled out and not be as offended if i had actually said- you. So, i soften the sentence and you do feel singled out think i mean- bad.

~sigh~

You have no idea how the Catholic Churc works. None. Communion is an issue involving knowing how the Catholic Church works.

So, condemn away- and you are welcome to Mass any Sunday @ 11:00.

[Meade]

You're welcome, Michael.

Seriously, I hope your prediction pans out but I'm doubtful. Shady despicable friends, millions and millions of untraceable campaign donations, and poorly-concealed contempt for the sub-elite Americans who "cling to their guns and religion" all point, in my opinion, to a Carter-Clinton redux times 10.

[realpc]

99.9% of Americans don't read books. The tiny percentage who read books read only a narrow range of subjects. Only a weirdo like myself has the time or interest to read various kinds of books with various kinds and degrees of bias.

I am not smarter, I am just weirder!!

And the result is I am always being amazed and appalled at how everyone simplifies everything. Of course you have to because you are busy with more important things (I am not being sarcastic, I mean it).

Barack Obama is NOT a progressive by any of the usual definitions. I am reading his book (The Audacity of Hope), and I am actually going to type in some quotes from it. Because he is a moderate if ever I saw one.

Of course the meaning of "progressive" is a moving target, and has come to mean anyone who basically disagrees with G.W. Bush on almost everything. Yes, Barack has a lot of differences with Bush.

But if you read his book you will see that, for example, he does not blame our lousy public education system on the stupid racist Republicans who want all the poor kids to drop out of school and stay poor. He actually blames it partly on the teacher unions.

And he understands why Clinton reformed welfare, and that it needed reform.

Well I will type in the quotes when I get a chance.

As for Chomsky -- I don't mind that 99.99999% of Americans don't know who he is or what he believes. I mind when know-it-all leftists drop the Chomsky name just to sound cool, without having ever read anything he wrote.

[amba]

Hey, don't pick on Dave Bonta so hard. Being a "Chomskyan anarchist" is just his way of being a libertarian by any other name.

[realpc]

Sorry Amba, but I am tired of people saying they're a Chomskan anarchist without even knowing what that means. Chomsky is a utopianist who thinks paradise will automatically arrive as soon as we get rid of all those evil nogoodniks. (Of course, there won't be any new evil nogoodniks coming around to take their place!)

And I would be hard on the other kind of libertarian also, because they have not given any thought to what happens when there is no government, no police, no military, no laws, etc.

[Dave]

I have read Chomsky plenty, and used his name not to sound cool (which I assure you I am not) but because I figured he's well enough known to politically savvy folks that I wouldn't have to explain in more detail where I'm coming from: anti-capitalist, run-of-the-mill left libertarian. (Chomsky's linguistic theories are incomprehensible nonsense IMO. His analysis of how ideological conformity shapes pulblic opinion, set forth in The Manufacturing of Consent, is likely to be much more long-lasting.) I don't consider myself anti-American in any way, shape or form, but that's a discussion for another time, I suppose. I'm glad I came back to this message string because "You bought a pig in a poke and the cat will soon be out of the bag" just gave me my LOL of the day. Mmmm, kitties... the other white meat!

[Dave]

Chomsky is a utopianist who thinks paradise will automatically arrive as soon as we get rid of all those evil nogoodniks.
Utopianist though he might be (depending on how one defines that), I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has been consistently critical of systems and structures, to the point of monotony. Are you sure you've read him?

[realpc]

"Chomsky has been consistently critical of systems and structures, to the point of monotony. Are you sure you've read him?"

Yes I am sure I read most of, or a lot of, what he wrote, too much of it, including 9/11. He does not specify what his paradise would be like, but utopianism is strongly implied in all his writing. It's like a kid who is mad at his parents and tirelessly lists their many faults. You know the kid believes his life would be paradise if his parents somehow disappeared.

Chomsky's great insight, in the late 1950s, was that human beings are born with a natural ability to learn a human language. Well duh. This only seemed like a great insight in the context of the times, since the psychologist B.F. Skinner had managed to convince America that the mind is completely empty at birth, and social conditioning creates the person (or animal).

Chomsky is very intelligent and was able to defeat Skinner in a debate. I don't see how Skinner could have won that debate even if his opponent was just any guy off the street. But this was the 1950s and I guess people were easily impressed. Anyway, this catapulted Chomsky into academic sainthood and nothing he could do or say ever since can be criticized. Only Chomskyan linguistic theories could be taught in American universities, even though there are other theories that make a heck of a lot more sense.

Because Chomsky believes all normal humans are genetically programmed to learn a human language (and who can argue with that?), he believes all humans are deserving of respect and rights (and who can argue with that?) And because all humans are deserving of respect and rights, in his mind, anyone who deprives anyone of their rights is bad. Ok. So what can we do?

Well, we can scour the media and all available documents for evidence that some people are cruel and unfair to others. We can compile gigantic long lists of unfairness, cruelty and violence. We can get really really mad, and then get even madder. And make lots of speeches to adoring fanatical followers. And we can dream of the lovely paradise that would flower if everybody would stop being cruel and unfair and violent, and just start loving one another, darnit.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The only reason people trust and revere Chomsky is because decades ago he had a common sense idea regarding linguistics.

I hate to find myself in the position of defending Chomsky (and some other time I'll pursue the oxymoronic "Chomskian anarchist" thing) but Chomsky is correctly admired for his contributions to mathematical linguistics and formal grammars.

In the mean time, though, it has been pretty amusing --- in a sort of gothic way --- to listen to people on the Left today complaining about al Zawahiri using a "racially loaded term" and complaining (seriously!) that al Qaeda didn't pay their African Muslim terrorists as much as Arabs.

We deserved what was done to us in New York and DC, but how dare they call Obama a "house negro"?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Amba, it's my understanding that the speech was in Arabic, and that the phrase could equally be translated to "house slave".