Obama continues to blame us for not resolving the grievances of terrorists

Obama speaks at summit on violent extremism, which not related to Islam whatsoever. (AP photo)

The day after publishing an op-ed on the Los Angeles Times website, Obama doubled down in a speech at his summit on countering violent extremism, saying the terrorist has legitimate grievances.

It is all our fault for not understanding the terrorists grievances and providing them jobs and economic and political opportunity, Obama basically said.

It is also the fault of the news media:

“I’d like to close by speaking very directly to a painful truth that’s part of the challenge that brings us here today.  In some of our countries, including the United States, Muslim communities are still small, relative to the entire population, and as a result, many people in our countries don’t always know personally of somebody who is Muslim.  So the image they get of Muslims or Islam is in the news.  And given the existing news cycle, that can give a very distorted impression.  A lot of the bad, like terrorists who claim to speak for Islam, that’s absorbed by the general population.  Not enough of the good — the more than 1 billion people around the world who do represent Islam, and are doctors and lawyers and teachers, and neighbors and friends.”

He that “the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie.”

To bring everyone together in a big group hug, Obama talked about creating a virtual exchange program — named after slaim Ambassador Chris Stevens of things — to connect a million young people in “America and the Middle East and North Africa for dialogue.  Young people are taught to hate.  It doesn’t come naturally to them.  We, adults, teach them.”

Has he ever looked at what is being said on the Internet by young people? Sure, let’s give thousands of our impressionable young people direct contact with bomb throwers and terrorists.

Obama said it is our responsibility to put down the newspaper and take a walk through your nearest Muslim community, like this man did, so we can all understand and appreciate their grievances:

45 comments on “Obama continues to blame us for not resolving the grievances of terrorists

  1. nyp says:

    Please provide the quote in which the President allegedly says that terrorists have legitimate grievances and that we should provide terrorists with jobs.

    Because I don’t think he ever said that. I think you are just making it up.

  2. A.D. Hopkins says:

    “The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie.” This is true, but it’s irrelevant. The topic of the times is that a minority of adherents to Islam, but still a seriously large number, are at war against Western ideals, allies of the West, and when they get the chance, the military forces of the West. The fact they wish to fight the latter does not automatically make offering battle a bad idea. It may be the best of our few available options.

  3. I did, Petey, follow the links. He said legitimate grievances Wednesday and grievances today … four times.

  4. There’s only one way to stop these bloodthirsty Islamic Jihadist terrorists…SHOCK and AWE. It’s time to unleash the big dogs. The only thing this himming and hawing by our Community Organizer in Chief does is to allow ISIS to overrun and claim more land, steal more assets, and shed more innocent blood.

  5. nyp says:

    You understand that we currently have extensive bombing campaigns underway against ISIS — you do understand that, don’t you?

  6. nyp says:

    I can see why Mr. Mitchell chose not to take up my challenge that he provide quotes to back up his allegation that the President said that terrorists have legitimate grievances.

    There are no such quotes. Mr. Mitchell simply misrepresented what the President said.

  7. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-obama-terrorism-conference-20150218-story.html
    Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

    Third, we must address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances.

    So if we’re serious about countering violent extremism, we have to get serious about confronting these economic grievances.

    Fourth, we have to address the political grievances that terrorists exploit.

  8. nyp says:

    To Thomas Mitchell, “addressing the political grievances that terrorists exploit” = “terrorists have legitimate grievances.”

  9. Yes I am well aware of Operation Pinprick. I’m also aware that most credible experienced military leaders have said this alone won’t stop ISIS. If our Empty Suit in the Whitehouse spent as much time putting together a focused military alliance from around the world to end this barbarism once and for all…as he does worrying about ruffling the feathers of moderate Muslims…we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  10. nyp says:

    Ah, so you are a ground troop guy. In which countries do you propose to station US ground troops? Syria, Iraq? Libya? Egypt? And how many hundreds of thousands of US troops to you propose to send?
    And precisely what is your strategy for using these troops to defeat ISIS?

  11. Barbara says:

    Obama and much of the West refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself is going through an internal war. ISIS is killing even more Muslims than Christians and Jews. Lack of opportunity or political greivances cannot account for this wide spread slaughter of fellow Muslims. Islam (all of it) is a religion stuck in the Middle Ages with all its barbarity. No outsiders are going to resolve these despotic beliefs. The game changer for the U.S. occurred during Clinton’s admininstration with the bombing of the World Trade Center, continued with the attack in the USS Cole, and then 911. All these attacks were fueled by militant Islam and its desire to establish world-wide domination. I’m tired of the Blame America crowd. Was America to blame for the Barbary Pirates? The blame lies with Islam and its teachings. If the more moderate Muslims desire peace, then they need to stop these atrocities that are being conducted in the name of their religion. It is unfortunate that Jordan and Egypt are not being fully supported in these attempts- late as they are in coming. What an embarrassment Obama has become!!! If the Republicans won’t impeach him, can’t they possibly find a way to at least keep him quiet until his term ends.

  12. nyp says:

    “Islam (all of it) is a religion stuck in the Middle Ages with all its barbarity.”

    That is indeed the Republican position — all of Islam is to blame, so the United States should be at total war with the entire Islamic world.

    Thanks for the clarity.

  13. I guess you didn’t pay attention to your own George Bush quotes…

  14. nyp says:

    I am told on this blog that George W. Bush is a Republican In Name Only, and is not representative of modern conservatism.

  15. Ding, ding, ding…you finally hit the nail on the head!

  16. Hey are those the moderate Muslims in that video clip from Paris that we keep hearing about? I wouldn’t go down those streets at night wearing that yarmulke… (great clip…thanks!)

  17. nyp says:

    Yup, we should simply agree with ISIS that America is at war with the Muslim religion, and we should establish military bases in all Arab countries.

  18. Steve says:

    Bombing these terrorists is only useful if you send in people to clean up the remains.

    In fact, bombing alone has never won a war or conflict.

    Marcus Lutrell says it well. 300 marines could get it done once and for all if only the politicians would unchain them and let them do what they are really good at doing.

    It really doesn’t matter is we send in 300 or 300,000 troops, Nyp. If we keep on limiting what they are allowed to do (ala Vietnam) we will have the exact same results as (we did in Vietnam) before.

    Get the Prez and his cohorts out of the way on this and lets get it done. And the same thiong went for the GWB invasion of Iraq. THAT Prez wasted worldwide political capital on a pointless war when we should have been going all out in Afghanistan chasing Osama Bin Laden. Even the current Prez hemmed and hawed over actually taking out Bin Laden after he was told it could be done.

    Give our military the goal and unleash them, enemy’s will fall post haste and allies will thank us.

  19. Nyp says:

    Unleash them to do what?

  20. Steve says:

    You may wish to read what I wrote again, Nyp.

  21. Barbara says:

    Unleash them to win- as in they surrender.

  22. Rincon says:

    Apparently, Brien feels that if brute force doesn’t fix something, you must not be using enough of it. Over 9 million .U.S. troops served in Vietnam, but we tied the hands of our armed forces behind their backs? We did in some ways. but my God, how much did they need? The death toll was 1,313,000 of which 58,303 were ours And for what? A discredited domino theory and a two bit Asian country. Almost everyone with a brain agrees in hindsight that, we should have just left that one alone. We, of course, accomplished nothing

    Let me clarify with an axiom of war: A guerrilla force can only function if it has tacit support from a substantial proportion of the population. The tenacity of the North Vietnamese, the Iraqi Sunnis, and the Taliban suggests that they had just that.. Even if we had “won”, the resistance movement would have been substantial and likely, successful over a period of decades. Fundamentalist Islam has far more support that Obama or militaristic Conservatives will acknowledge.

    The answer? Stop funding them. Look up Wahhabism for an education. The Saudis have been involuntarily (or voluntarily) funding terrorism for decades.

  23. Nyp says:

    That’s a hell of a strategy you geniuses have there

  24. Steve says:

    Much better than the Vietnam strategy you peeps keep failing with, Nyp.

    Can’t shoot over there, or bomb in that place or shoot in that other area…never mind those are the places are where the enemy is while shooting at us!

    Give the Generals the goals and let them do their jobs.

  25. Nyp says:

    So bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and those other RINOs kept our military from doing theit jobs.

  26. Steve says:

    You may wish to (again) read my post, Nyp.

  27. I’m well aware of the Wahhabists…and I’m well aware of the fundamentalist Islamic support in most of these countries…but the subject is the brutality of ISIS. I also believe that the families of those heads on the poles lining the roads of Iraq…would be greatful if someone liberated them from this nightmare. I like Steve’s proposal…what’s your solution Rincon?

  28. Barbara says:

    Rincon, – We won’t stop funding what we refuse to identify. There are many fronts to this war, but the first step is identifying the target. I would suggest that if their Imans do not publically refute these barbaric acts, then perhaps the fault is with the religion itself. If this be true, a George Patton type leader will be needed both politically and operationally. Any NYP – you should have also included Colin Powell.

  29. Nyp says:

    We should invade Saudi Arabia

  30. Steve says:

    reductio ad absurdum

    Concession by Nyp, noted.

  31. Rincon says:

    We can certainly do more, but step one is to stop paying for both sides of all of these wars. As for brutality, yes, war is a terrible thing and I in no way justify these nutcases, BUT war is war. It’s not ballet. We justified the slaughter of 35,000 or so civilians in Dresden with napalm as necessary to conquer the greater evil of Naziism. The fundamentalist Muslims are capable of a similar rationalization. In most wars, both sides feel very justified. Let’s not let our emotions prod us into acting against our own self interest. Whack-a-mole is fun as a game, but worthless in warfare. Ask the British about 1776.

  32. Winston Smith says:

    By the way, gang, the DARPA program has some of you chasing your tails to answer its questions. Until it starts to give answers to its own questions, I’d suggest a moratorium on laying your solutions out there. It’s only trying to mess with your heads anyway.

    BTW2, I think it’s about time for its regularly scheduled ObamaCare advert…

  33. nyp says:

    The number of Nevadans who signed up for high-quality, affordable health care insurance more than doubled this enrollment season over the last season.

  34. Winston Smith says:


  35. Steve says:

    “high-quality, affordable health care insurance”


  36. Rincon says:

    DARPA? Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency?

  37. Winston Smith says:

    Oooooh noooooo, the little fed is upset!


  38. Steve says:

    This is what happens when you try to makes friends out of people who sympathize with your enemy.
    Basic rule in war time conditions, if you are not with us you are against us.

  39. Rincon says:

    In reply to Buchanan: “In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous. Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium.” (Adam Smith, 1776, book IV, ch. iii, part ii)

  40. Winston Smith says:

    Adam Smith’s view on free trade applies if the treaties are written to benefit all players, but NAFTA and GATT were designed to do just as they have done, only benefit those fascist/globalists that wrote it:


    The TPP is designed by the same guys, with essentially the same goals.

  41. Rincon says:

    This article was written by Jeff FAUX? It’s a joke, right? Seriously though, he said, “The NAFTA doctrine of socialism for capital and free markets for labor…” Huh? I did a little search and although I can’t really find anything on this, Socialist.org opposes NAFTA. Can you explain to me how NAFTA has a doctrine of socialism?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s