Amir Abdel Malik Ali: Barack Obama would be a figurehead for this Corrupt, Brutal, and Immoral Empire
Posted by: Jonathan Constantine | 02/23/2008 3:59 PM
This one for you Chris Prevatt, Claudio Gallegos, and Gustavo Arellano:
I don't mean to say this facetiously, but I know you've all been critical of my MSU reporting (I must say you all have been spirited and fair). But as the video below shows, we are all in the same boat against militant jihadism. In his speech at UCI last Thursday, frequent MSU guest speaker Amir Abdel Malik Ali stated that the United States was a "corrupt, brutal, and immoral empire," and in so many words he feared Barack Obama the most. In fact, he states that he would prefer a wolf like George Bush who woke up the Islamic world in resistance, to a fox like Barack Obama who would wage war on Muslims and take away their land by killing them with kindness. He also states that Obama would hurt African Americans (who according to Ali are revered throughout the world for their resistance against the United States), by becoming a figurehead for this "corrupt, brutal, and immoral empire." Tell that to our African-American servicemen.
The next part is on how morality and militancy are not mutual exclusive. Note: According to Ali, anti-affirmative action efforts were lead by Zionists. (Questions for Ali or the MSU: How? And are these Zionists Jews or non-Jews?)
As you see in the next video, I posed the question for Ali (to paraphrase myself): Since you believe that militancy and morality are not mutually exclusive, how should we as UCI students interpret Malcom X when he said "by any means necessary?" His answer (to paraphrase): He meant the ballot or the bullet. Malcom X didn't believe that being peaceful was a principle, it's a tactic we should rotate with violence. See the video for yourself: Check out additional footage here.
I don't mean to say this facetiously, but I know you've all been critical of my MSU reporting (I must say you all have been spirited and fair). But as the video below shows, we are all in the same boat against militant jihadism. In his speech at UCI last Thursday, frequent MSU guest speaker Amir Abdel Malik Ali stated that the United States was a "corrupt, brutal, and immoral empire," and in so many words he feared Barack Obama the most. In fact, he states that he would prefer a wolf like George Bush who woke up the Islamic world in resistance, to a fox like Barack Obama who would wage war on Muslims and take away their land by killing them with kindness. He also states that Obama would hurt African Americans (who according to Ali are revered throughout the world for their resistance against the United States), by becoming a figurehead for this "corrupt, brutal, and immoral empire." Tell that to our African-American servicemen.
The next part is on how morality and militancy are not mutual exclusive. Note: According to Ali, anti-affirmative action efforts were lead by Zionists. (Questions for Ali or the MSU: How? And are these Zionists Jews or non-Jews?)
As you see in the next video, I posed the question for Ali (to paraphrase myself): Since you believe that militancy and morality are not mutually exclusive, how should we as UCI students interpret Malcom X when he said "by any means necessary?" His answer (to paraphrase): He meant the ballot or the bullet. Malcom X didn't believe that being peaceful was a principle, it's a tactic we should rotate with violence. See the video for yourself: Check out additional footage here.
CATEGORY:
FEATURE
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
See, Jonathan? You should support Obama--he freaks out jihadis more than any Reep!
The constitution applies to all persons within the borders of the United States. He has the right to say what he wants to say. Sure he’s a nut, but so what.
Get over it.
Really. This is an obsession. Nobody cares what this clown says or thinks.
Obama as a front for The Man! I think that there's an element of truth to this - which certainly puts him on par with most presidents. It's almost a job prerequisite you might say.
Speaking of which, GWB is the most obvious stage prop in the White House since Warren Harding, though not nearly as intelligent - and that's saying a lot. The results have not been salubrious for the USA.
So are you both saying that I should just shut up because of his 1st Amendment Rights? What about mine? I can't expose militant or hate speech? Especially if it comes from people who proclaim themselves as enemies.
Using that same logic...should we shut down the press because speech from politicians and community leaders is protected under the 1st Amendment?
"So are you both saying that I should just shut up because of his 1st Amendment Rights? What about mine?"
No, I didn't say that, now did I.
I expect such earnest froth from callow youth. But you musn't expect us oldsters to get all het up over what some loud-mouthed bigot spouts on campus.
And don't forget to hit the books - mid-terms coming up!
Red,
Earnest and callow youth?
Do I sense some old age and insecurity?
Here's some advice: pop open a few beers with your old frat gang and reminisce about the good old days.
"Do I sense some old age and insecurity?"
If you sensed a lot of old age you'd be right. I already get all the froth I need from those beers.
Cheers. The gang and I drink to your health. And don't forget the mid-terms.
hahahah!
Good stuff.
If this guy is really a nut, like you attempt to make him out to be, then point out those areas that make him sound like one. It seems that you are reaching and striving to pull some dirt on him, but to those of us who are knowledgeable, your efforts are blatantly desperate.
Regarding your comment about Malcolm X: "it's a tactic we should rotate with violence". You obviously need to work on your listening comprehension and historical knowledge. If you knew anything about Malcolm X, you would know that "ballot or the bullet" refers to a last resort. He pushed people to vote by all means....if they were prevented from voting or if their voting had no effect on the bilateral laws (i.e. injustice/racism/inequalities), then the next option would be to use force.
This is common sense...nobody is willing to sit by and be oppressed while crying silently in the dark. First with your voice, then with your actions.
As for his comment on Obama, he is stating the obvious. Nobody can get into politics while walking a straight line. They have to raise money for successful campaigns. Do you think this money is donated without any strings attached? NO...they have to adopt certain policies in order to appease specific groups with the most generous donations. In other words, the have to be "bought and sold".