Why Obama refuses the label: "Islamist fanatics"

[amrchaos]

I thought the term was 'radical Islam'


If there is only one Islam, the adjective tells us that Islam is abnormal, probably dangerous.

The term is avoided because it can cater to Islamophobia or ostracize Muslims that are not terrorists.

A little bit PC, but can have dangerous consequences in terms of propaganda.

 

[TooTall]

As the leader of the free world, the president has a responsibility to be honest and call out what this is.
This is Islamic extremism, and we shouldn't be going out of our way to avoid publicly admitting it.

To offend an ENTIRE religion is suicidal....Sane people know this....Morons....not so much.

Unless every Muslim has been radicalized, (and they haven't) calling those that have been radical Islamist Terrorists doesn't or shouldn't offend the ENTIRE religion. Sane people know this, Morons don't.

 

[blackhawk]

Using that logic you can't call any radical extremist group radical extremist as doing so might offend anyone who happens to be of the same race, nationality , gender ect of the extremist. So I guess going foreward the words white supremacist, radical right winger, radical left winger, black radical, to name a few should no longer be used.

NO...you and your ilk are missing the whole point.

You can call these terrorists...Scum, bastards and worthy of killing.....BUT to link them as Islamists is to slander an entire religion whose worshipers outnumber us 5 to 1.

The only point you and your ilk have is on the top of your head calling radical Islamic terrorist radical Islamic terrorist is not calling every person who worships Islam a radical terrorist it is calling those specific people who commit terrorist acts and use Islam as justification for it that grow up already.

 

[OKTexas]

Is that the best you got, really? LMAO

Well, if the ONLY purpose of this forum is to hurl insults at one another...then you're right....My retort wasn't much of what you truly deserve....

Come back and visit when you have a clue.

Is that the best you got, really? LMAO

Well, if the ONLY purpose of this forum is to hurl insults at one another...then you're right....My retort wasn't much of what you truly deserve....

Come back and visit when you have a clue.

The quote you posted wasn't in response to anything you said, maybe you're the one in need of a clue.

 

[easyt65]

The position of president of the U.S. carries with it the severe responsibility of avoiding emotional outbursts that can make a situation much worse.

"Although I have not heard any of the details of the case it is evident that the Cops acted stupidly."
-- Obama, leaving one meeting and rushing to another, made this comment. By his own admission he knew none of the fact of the case; however, he could not help himself from making the ignorant, judgmental, racially-biased comment that turned out to be completely wrong.

He was quick to falsely call the Ft. Hood Terrorist attack a case of 'work-place violence' and falsely labeled (over and over) the Benghazi terrorist attack a 'protest over a video gone bad'.

If he has 'the responsibility of avoiding emotional outbursts that can make a situation worse', Barry has certainly FAILED in that responsibility numerous times.

Yesterday he engaged in his own emotional, angry outburst when he lashed out at those who have criticized him for refusing to use the term 'Radical Islam' and arrogantly lectured the American people.

One of the reasons he claimed he will not use the term is that if we use the term 'Islamic Extremist / Jihadist' - which many, MANY nations throughout Europe and the Middle East are using to describe those extremists using violent terrorist tactics, such as suicide bombings, 9/11/01-style attacks, and the one seen in Orlando - it means we are at war with all of Islam. Pardon my frankness, but what B$!

'What does Obama call when the self-proclaimed 'Soldier of Allah' guns down his fellow soldiers while yelling 'Allah Akbar'? A 'Case of workplace violence!'
-- This is a well known 'joke' that was begun after the Ft. Hood Shooting. ...Except it was NO JOKE!

Despite Hassan going onto Jihadist web sites, despite being in contact with Al Qaeida, despite calling himself the 'Soldier of Allah', despite threatening to behead his fellow soldiers if they refused to convert to Islam, despite gunning down his fellow soldiers as he praised Allah, Obama still refused to call is what it was - 'Islamic Extremism / Radical Islam'!



No one I knew though, 'That dude represents all the Muslims in the world / Represent Islam'. Everyone thought / KNEW that was a RADICAL Islamic Extremist...except Obama. He was so eager / desperate to protect ISLAM he was willing to call the ATTACK a case of 'workplace violence', let the American soldiers' orders/records ignore the fact that they died in this on-going WAR we're in, and deny the families the benefits they deserved / earned when their loved ones were murdered by a terrorist, all to protect Islam.

Pardon me, but F* ISLAM, and the violent extremists he sought to protect, in this case. The lives...and deaths...of those soldiers and their families deserved to be the President's 1st concern, not protecting Islam!

 

[OKTexas]

Using that logic you can't call any radical extremist group radical extremist as doing so might offend anyone who happens to be of the same race, nationality , gender ect of the extremist. So I guess going foreward the words white supremacist, radical right winger, radical left winger, black radical, to name a few should no longer be used.

NO...you and your ilk are missing the whole point.

You can call these terrorists...Scum, bastards and worthy of killing.....BUT to link them as Islamists is to slander an entire religion whose worshipers outnumber us 5 to 1.

So by your logic, a cop saying a suspect is black is slandering the whole race, you're not too smart are you?

 

[Contumacious]

Muslim Orlando Shooter





What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

 

[easyt65]

9/11/01....terrorist used planes...and yet Liberals have not called for the complete ban on airliners....hmmmm.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Why do the far right unAmerican activists opposed the term "radical jihadism"?

Because the word 'Jihad' has nothing to do with what they're doing. Islamic Terrorist is actually accurate.

You are wrong, so go hoe your row.

You must be trolling, but I'll explain anyway. Jihad is an Islamic term, referring to their duty to maintain their belief. The Quran actually states that Muslims are not supposed to fight non-believers except to defend themselves, and that when given the opportunity, they are supposed to bring them to safety. What they're doing isn't Jihad, it's undermining their own religion.

You are as always in error on this.

Radical jahadism is a term that defines the aberration of Islamic Jihad.

You are an aberration with a false agenda using a false term.

Go tend to your rows.

You're getting the definition of the word Radical wrong, too. It means "far reaching" or "thorough". What they're doing isn't far reaching or thorough, it's opposite to the teachings of their religion. Your term is inaccurate in both regards.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Why do the far right unAmerican activists opposed the term "radical jihadism"?

Because the word 'Jihad' has nothing to do with what they're doing. Islamic Terrorist is actually accurate.

You are wrong, so go hoe your row.

You must be trolling, but I'll explain anyway. Jihad is an Islamic term, referring to their duty to maintain their belief. The Quran actually states that Muslims are not supposed to fight non-believers except to defend themselves, and that when given the opportunity, they are supposed to bring them to safety. What they're doing isn't Jihad, it's undermining their own religion.

You are as always in error on this.

Radical jahadism is a term that defines the aberration of Islamic Jihad.

You are an aberration with a false agenda using a false term.

Go tend to your rows.

You're getting the definition of the word Radical wrong, too. It means "far reaching" or "thorough". What they're doing isn't far reaching or thorough, it's opposite to the teachings of their religion. Your term is inaccurate in both regards.

They're playing word salad to deflect.

 

[tinydancer]

I put this up in my other thread where President Hollande of France has no problem calling out Islamic terrorism. World leaders use these terms. Obama and his administration are on the fringe for refusing to address the issue.

Here's another gem. From PM of Britain. Obama is odd man out.

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism
Prime Minister says those who have failed to confront fanatics’ ideology must speak up as he announces plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism

 

[Contumacious]

I put this up in my other thread where President Hollande of France has no problem calling out Islamic terrorism. World leaders use these terms. Obama and his administration are on the fringe for refusing to address the issue.

Here's another gem. From PM of Britain. Obama is odd man out.

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism
Prime Minister says those who have failed to confront fanatics’ ideology must speak up as he announces plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism

BULLSHIT


Tell Cameron to get his troops out of the middle east. STOP assisting the US in its commitment to Mulisms genocide.


.

 

[bendog]

I thought the term was 'radical Islam'


If there is only one Islam, the adjective tells us that Islam is abnormal, probably dangerous.

The term is avoided because it can cater to Islamophobia or ostracize Muslims that are not terrorists.

A little bit PC, but can have dangerous consequences in terms of propaganda.

And that's why the Trumpbots have to use it because Trump has to say it's war between Warrior Jesus and Infidel Muhammad, while Obama - and the military and intelligence communities - consistently say it's a war within Islam, that muslims have to win for themselves.

Obama can be criticized for being perhaps too pessimistic and too unwilling to give aid whenever possible, but that has nothing to do with Trump. Had the gop run a serious candidate, then that might have been the discussion. But the Trumpbots screwed the pooch.

 

[kaz]

The position of president of the U.S. carries with it the severe responsibility of avoiding emotional outbursts that can make a situation much worse. For all my criticism of GWB, I did admire him for not falling into the labeling trap so much flaunted by Trump and his pissed-off supporters.

NO ONE can ever defeat radical Islamists (note that I can say it, but a US president should not) than other, moderate, sane, SECULAR Muslims and their governments.

To his credit, Bush moderated his remarks after 9-11 to curb the emotions by our citizens to be objective about the attack on us, and not rush us into a religious war. There are almost 2 billion Muslims on our planet and to link all the sins of a fanatical fringe to ALL who follow that faith, borders on insanity. We could never win a "war" based on our versus their ideology.

We NEED Muslims to help us eradicate the fanaticism of a relative few of the same (but misguided and misinterpreted) faith.

Of all the many reasons to prevent a demagogue like Trump to ever step into the presidency, the fact that Trump is just an unprepared, ego-driven charlatan who could land us into a religious world war, is primary.

Obama is absolutely correct...The use of the label of "radical Islamist" resolves NOTHING and only exacerbates the division among those we sorely need to mitigate the current discord.

A President cannot say it? Why? How does it help to not know who the enemy is? Should FDR have not named the Japanese and the Germans as the enemy?

 

[kaz]

As the leader of the free world, the president has a responsibility to be honest and call out what this is.
This is Islamic extremism, and we shouldn't be going out of our wy to avoid publicly admitting it.

To offend an ENTIRE religion is suicidal....Sane people know this....Morons....not so much.

So seriously, you don't think most Muslims know that radical Muslims are trying to kill us and it offends them to have us say that? I think you're full of shit

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I put this up in my other thread where President Hollande of France has no problem calling out Islamic terrorism. World leaders use these terms. Obama and his administration are on the fringe for refusing to address the issue.

Here's another gem. From PM of Britain. Obama is odd man out.

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism
Prime Minister says those who have failed to confront fanatics’ ideology must speak up as he announces plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles

David Cameron: Muslim silent majority must tackle Islamist extremism

BULLSHIT


Tell Cameron to get his troops out of the middle east. STOP assisting the US in its commitment to Mulisms genocide.


.

Who the hell are the Mulisms?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do the far right unAmerican activists opposed the term "radical jihadism"?

Because the word 'Jihad' has nothing to do with what they're doing. Islamic Terrorist is actually accurate.

You are wrong, so go hoe your row.

You must be trolling, but I'll explain anyway. Jihad is an Islamic term, referring to their duty to maintain their belief. The Quran actually states that Muslims are not supposed to fight non-believers except to defend themselves, and that when given the opportunity, they are supposed to bring them to safety. What they're doing isn't Jihad, it's undermining their own religion.

You are as always in error on this.

Radical jahadism is a term that defines the aberration of Islamic Jihad.

You are an aberration with a false agenda using a false term.

Go tend to your rows.

You're getting the definition of the word Radical wrong, too. It means "far reaching" or "thorough". What they're doing isn't far reaching or thorough, it's opposite to the teachings of their religion. Your term is inaccurate in both regards.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own aberration of terms and definitions and facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As long as we support one side or the other in the ME, the jihad will continue.

 

[forkup]

As long as we support one side or the other in the ME, the jihad will continue.

The Jihad will continue as long as people like Trump are taken as serious candidates in the US. It's very easy for radical Islam to get support for a crusade against the west when ,people who are supposed to be our leaders don't differentiate between Muslims ad Jihadis. Trump is the poster boy ISIS dreams of.

 

[kaz]

As long as we support one side or the other in the ME, the jihad will continue.

Yes, we are way too engaged in the Middle East. But don't fool yourself into thinking that means we're not a target, it just moves us down the list