Obama: Why I won't say 'Islamic terrorism'

anatta

100% recycled karma
But on Wednesday at a CNN presidential town hall, he was asked to defend why he refuses to say "Islamic" terrorism to a Gold Star mother.

"My son gave his life for acts of terrorism," audience member Tina Houchins told Obama at the town hall moderated by CNN's Jake Tapper. "Do you still believe that the acts of terrorism are done for the self-proclaimed Islamic religious motive? And if you do, why do you still refuse to use the term ... Islamic terrorist?"

These are people who've killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves, there's no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do," he said. "But what I have been careful about when I describe these issues is to make sure that we do not lump these murderers into the billion Muslims that exist around the world, including in this country, who are peaceful, who are responsible, who, in this country, are fellow troops and police officers and fire fighters and teachers and neighbors and friends."

Tapper interjected: "You were clearly talking about the Republican nominee Donald Trump just then --"

"No, I wasn't," Obama said. "It's not unique to the Republican nominee. Look, I'm trying to be careful, we're on a military base, I don't insert partisan politics into this. I think that there have been a number of public figures where you start hearing commentary that is dangerous. Because what it starts doing is it starts dividing us up as Americans."

After the Orlando shootings in June, Trump used the term "radical Islamic terrorism" to describe the motives. It became a topic of the election after he publicly criticized Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for not using the term.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/index.html
 
what a load of garbage. Salafism is worldwide, and it's a big part of Islam.. One can claim jihadi perverts it or not -
but it's a significant part of Sunni salafi Islam.

At one point, Obama said that the danger of using the term is when "a president or people aspiring to become president get loose with this language."
so use inaccurate language instead??? wtf?
 
what a load of garbage. Salafism is worldwide, and it's a big part of Islam.. One can claim jihadi perverts it or not -
but it's a significant part of Sunni salafi Islam.

so use inaccurate language instead??? wtf?

Self imposed delusion lol? Is self delusion *ever* a good thing?

The radicals don't care what we call them. They have their jihad and the promise of Paradise. So Obama's choice of words changes nothing in terms of the threat. What it does do, is to allow some segments of the Muslim community to take part in the delusion.

If the radicals aren't Islamic, then Islam has no problem. And if Islam has no problem with radicals [since they aren't really Islamic] then there's no need for reformation in Islam.

And around we go...
 
Self imposed delusion lol? Is self delusion *ever* a good thing?

The radicals don't care what we call them. They have their jihad and the promise of Paradise. So Obama's choice of words changes nothing in terms of the threat. What it does do, is to allow some segments of the Muslim community to take part in the delusion.

If the radicals aren't Islamic, then Islam has no problem. And if Islam has no problem with radicals [since they aren't really Islamic] then there's no need for reformation in Islam.

And around we go...
it actually does influence western analysis of threat matrixes .
 
Makes perfect sense to me.

The right doesn't get it on this issue. Not even a little bit.

The only thing more stupid than Obama's asinine excuse is the people that actually find it make sense....
.........by that logic you must think that "right wing terrorists" just has to mean that all right wingers are terrorists.....

Being as ignorant and gullible as you are, you most likely do.
 
The only thing more stupid than Obama's asinine excuse is the people that actually find it make sense....
.........by that logic you must think that "right wing terrorists" just has to mean that all right wingers are terrorists.....

Being as ignorant and gullible as you are, you most likely do.

I actually did laugh out loud.
 
Makes perfect sense to me.

The right doesn't get it on this issue. Not even a little bit.

That's because you have puckered up and enjoy kissing Obama's black asshole. You must like the taste because you "eat" it regularly.
 
I think Nova has a point there about "right wing terrorists." But I would say we should stop using that phrase.

For the right wingers, you guys always get defensive when someone is labeled a "right wing terrorists" and then you start trying to discredit the idea that the perp is a right winger. I still remember PiMPle and/or ditzy arguing that McVeigh was an atheist and therefore not right wing.

In fact, the top 2 articles returned from the search "was mcveigh a right winger"...

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=was mcveigh a right winger

http://www.weeklystandard.com/debun...ight-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384
http://www.conservapedia.com/Timothy_McVeigh

...

The weekly standard article tries to discredit the idea that anyone ever referred to as a "right wing terrorist" was right wing. It's mostly "no true Scotsman" arguments and you get the same from Muslims. But the point is, it puts people on the defensive, it is divisive and nothing of significant value is gained from it.
 
I think Nova has a point there about "right wing terrorists." But I would say we should stop using that phrase.

For the right wingers, you guys always get defensive when someone is labeled a "right wing terrorists" and then you start trying to discredit the idea that the perp is a right winger. I still remember PiMPle and/or ditzy arguing that McVeigh was an atheist and therefore not right wing.

In fact, the top 2 articles returned from the search "was mcveigh a right winger"...

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=was mcveigh a right winger

http://www.weeklystandard.com/debun...ight-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384
http://www.conservapedia.com/Timothy_McVeigh

...

The weekly standard article tries to discredit the idea that anyone ever referred to as a "right wing terrorist" was right wing. It's mostly "no true Scotsman" arguments and you get the same from Muslims. But the point is, it puts people on the defensive, it is divisive and nothing of significant value is gained from it.

The point is...if the terrorist is a right winger, then he is a right wing terrorist
if the terrorist is Islamic, then he is obviously an Islamic terrorist....

Neither statement means that all of those, whether right wing or Islamic, is a terrorist...and to look at the facts differently is just plain stupid....
Thingy being a perfect example along with most pinheads on the left....including Obama and Hillary.
 
The point is...if the terrorist is a right winger, then he is a right wing terrorist
if the terrorist is Islamic, then he is obviously an Islamic terrorist....

Neither statement means that all of those, whether right wing or Islamic, is a terrorist...and to look at the facts differently is just plain stupid....
Thingy being a perfect example along with most pinheads on the left....including Obama and Hillary.


Yeah, I understood what your point was, but your point is stupid. Still, I would suggest you share it with The Weekly Standard and Conservapedia.

Nobody is looking at the facts differently. Some just prefer to avoid divisive language that puts innocent people on the defensive (their defensiveness may be rational or not... it makes no difference) that has no significant and legitimate value.

There is no point in dividing people on something the majority of us would condemn. Whether McVeigh was a right winger, libertarian, atheist or Christian does not matter. Nearly all can agree he was an asshole.
 
I think Nova has a point there about "right wing terrorists." But I would say we should stop using that phrase.

For the right wingers, you guys always get defensive when someone is labeled a "right wing terrorists" and then you start trying to discredit the idea that the perp is a right winger. I still remember PiMPle and/or ditzy arguing that McVeigh was an atheist and therefore not right wing.

In fact, the top 2 articles returned from the search "was mcveigh a right winger"...

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=was mcveigh a right winger

http://www.weeklystandard.com/debun...ight-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384
http://www.conservapedia.com/Timothy_McVeigh

...

The weekly standard article tries to discredit the idea that anyone ever referred to as a "right wing terrorist" was right wing. It's mostly "no true Scotsman" arguments and you get the same from Muslims. But the point is, it puts people on the defensive, it is divisive and nothing of significant value is gained from it.

Well then, reality is divisive lol.

Why shouldn't moderate Muslims be put on the defensive when a significant minority of their co-religionists have the Middle East on the verge of starting a global conflict. Why should we prop-up the charade that ISIS isn't really Islamic---when it is really, really, Islamic? How is it in any productive to pretend that Islam doesn't have a problem when it really does?

It's absurd.
 
Why shouldn't moderate Muslims be put on the defensive when a significant minority of their co-religionists have the Middle East on the verge of starting a global conflict. Why should we prop-up the charade that ISIS isn't really Islamic---when it is really, really, Islamic? How is it in any productive to pretend that Islam doesn't have a problem when it really does?

It's absurd.

Again nobody is denying the reality that McVeigh held ideas consistent with a right winger but right wingers. Their/your defensiveness over it is understandable and could be avoided.

Why shouldn't moderate Muslims be put on the defensive when a significant minority of their co-religionists have the Middle East on the verge of starting a global conflict. Why should we prop-up the charade that ISIS isn't really Islamic---when it is really, really, Islamic? How is it in any productive to pretend that Islam doesn't have a problem when it really does?

It's absurd.

Because, if they are on the defensive, they won't do anything to change Islam. Instead they focus on the person they see as their assailant, the same way The Weekly Standard refused to look at the alt-right with McVeigh and instead focused on the "left wing" media who hurt their fee fees.

Islam is a part of ISIS's name. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Not sure what you are going on about there.
 
Back
Top