Obama clears up the name game

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

This does not sound very logical . So you and your ilk (for nefarious purposes) want Obama to use the term Islamic Terrorism and thereby wage war on Islam? Do you have any idea how may Americans live or visit countries where Islam is the national religion? He will put their lives will be in peril to say the least.

Talk about being disingenuous.

Exactly, and that was the presidents point. Trump is so damn stupid he'll do nothing but go around making more enemies.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

This does not sound very logical . So you and your ilk (for nefarious purposes) want Obama to use the term Islamic Terrorism and thereby wage war on Islam? Do you have any idea how may Americans live or visit countries where Islam is the national religion? He will put their lives will be in peril to say the least.

Talk about being disingenuous.

The entire religion of peace would want to go to war over an accurate description of the murderous groups that have hijacked their religion? And they would side with those murderers rather than those who described them accurately?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

The entire religion of peace would want to go to war over an accurate description of the murderous groups that have hijacked their religion? And they would side with those murderers rather than those who described them accurately?

I personally will not call Islam a religion of peace despite the post 9/11 proclamations. The last three terror attacks by US citizens, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and now Orlando were all lone wolf attacks, partly or totally inspired by Islamic fundamentalism. How is declaration of war on Islam going to prevent even more carnage against Americans in Muslim countries?

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I personally will not call Islam a religion of peace despite the post 9/11 proclamations. The last three terror attacks by US citizens, Chattanooga, San Bernardino and now Orlando were all lone wolf attacks, partly or totally inspired by Islamic fundamentalism. How is declaration of war on Islam going to prevent even more carnage against Americans in Muslim countries?

Who is declaring war on islam? LGBTQNation did a story less than a month ago about radical christian terrorists. Have we heard a cry from christians across the land that they will take up arms for this great indignation on their religion? Why would you think followers of islam would react in such anger to a similar description of the problems at the fringes of their religion?

[Pio1980]

Fundamentalists of any stripe are a humongous pain in the ass.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Here's how I see it. He's not willing to put the word islam in a sentence with anything negative. He will use the name of a single group, since there's nothing negative there. But he won't use a term to describe the multiple islamic murderous groups as a whole. Any time he has to describe the bigger problem, it's just "terror groups" with no recognition that all the deadliest organizations in the world are islamic.

It's like he'll say he's going to the store to get milk, eggs, bread, tuna, and mustard. But he won't say he's going to the grocery store, just the "store". And he won't say he's getting groceries. He'll talk about how he's going to get milk. He might mention he needs some eggs too, but won't use an inclusive term for all of it because he doesn't want to offend any other food items he doesn't plan to purchase.

A lot of people gave Obama harsh criticism for using drones to kill terrorist abroad. He can't win either way. You should judge people by their actions, not their words. The GOP and Trump have not done one thing to address the assault weapon part of the equation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Profoundly stupid. How would you have felt if Obama put the blame on the @sshole who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado on Christianity?

That would be stupid because its not a central tenet of any Christian faith to shoot up Planned Parenthood clinics.

It is, however, the stated goal of Islamist terrorists to kill Americans whenever and wherever possible. THEY call it Jihad. We don't. We want to paper over that term because we don't want to offend. Its. right here in the latest DHS report on how to address domestic terror threats. Of course DHS doesn't call it domestic terror. Its a report on "Countering Violent Extremism".

An example of the "Key Recommendations" from that report:

"Given the evolving threat and how the process of radicalization itself is evolving, update and change the rules on how government uses lexicon"

Details of that recommendation include:

Actions:
1. Renew efforts to describe CVE, its origin of soft power,9
and attempt to re-establish
the term to ensure that prevention programs are not inter-mingled with surveillance
or intelligence-gathering programs.
2. Bring consistency into government use of language and meaning.
3. Ensure the Department reviews the 2008 directive and uses a vocabulary when
discussing extremism that avoids the “us versus them” framing.
4. Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain
meaning American English.
a. US v THEM: For example, use “American Muslim” rather than “Muslim
American”; “Muslim communities” rather than “Muslim world.”
b. AMERICAN ENGLISH: For example, on using American English instead
of religious, legal and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or
“umma.”

So, its our fault. We need to clean up our act and not use certain words because its offensive. Its the use of words like this by us insensitive Americans that may have played a role in making our enemies angry and inciting folks like Mateen.

Here's the logic behind it, again from the DHS report:

All of this is set against the backdrop of digitally connected recruitment
efforts that are actively trying to exploit differences and create divisions across U.S. society. We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and
words.

And this:

Though it was within the context of the “War on Terror,” the Department’s 2008 guidance about lexicon is important to review as it has bearing on groups like ISIL. It instructs the Department to ensure terminology is “properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists
who argue that the West is at war with Islam.”

Of course, someone needs to explain to me how Mateen was "give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation" while he was killing folks in Orlando. I've also never bought into the idea that we reduce the recruiting power of Islamic extremists by talking nice. That's childish.

This is the logic behind Obama's over-careful use of words when describing our enemies. Sorry, I don't see the need for being over-careful with our enemies' feelings.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by icenine

A lot of people gave Obama harsh criticism for using drones to kill terrorist abroad. He can't win either way. You should judge people by their actions, not their words. The GOP and Trump have not done one thing to address the assault weapon part of the equation.

I don't own an AR/AK type weapon and never have. Matter of fact I got called Elmer Fudd on the gun forums for stating that they are unnecessary as a hunting weapon.

But, at this point in time thinking that a ban on them will have an impact is wishful thinking. Too many of them out there. Sort of like how the gun ban in Chicago is working.

It would be one of those useless make people happy type legislations.

My worry is that the time will come soon where we wish the terrorists were using assault weapons instead of whatever they come up with next.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

I don't own an AR/AK type weapon and never have. Matter of fact I got called Elmer Fudd on the gun forums for stating that they are unnecessary as a hunting weapon.

But, at this point in time thinking that a ban on them will have an impact is wishful thinking. Too many of them out there. Sort of like how the gun ban in Chicago is working.

It would be one of those useless make people happy type legislations.

My worry is that the time will come soon where we wish the terrorists were using assault weapons instead of whatever they come up with next.

The "Chicago ban" argument is BS considering the lax gun laws right next door in Indiana.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Profoundly stupid is trying to somehow equate a single incident to my theory of terming an overall problem. How do Obama's words treat christianity/christians as a group, overall, and does it differ from how he treats islam/muslims?
I can find quotes that are critical of organized religion overall. I can find quotes that are critical of christianity and the bible.
I don't see any that are critical of islam.

Calm down. Collect yourself and think about what you're saying here. Either you're saying that you can fund quotes from President Obama which are critical of religion in general and Christianity specifically but no statements which are critical of Islam.... Or you're saying that the world is full of criticism of religion and Christianity but none that are critical of Islam.

Either way your statement is clearly counter-factual and willfully ignorant.