Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?

[Mr Person]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

His refusal to say it is sort of immaterial. His refusal to recognize it is the problem.

He's increased just about every Bush anti-terror program other than waterboarding.

NSA, Drones, etc.




Are the hugely increased drone strikes really because he doesn't "recognize the problem"? What explains them, then? He hates the color white?




This whole thing is one of those utterly meaningless wedge issues proferred by the right. As usual, nobody getting angry about his refusal to say the specific words "radical islamic terrorist" (or, for example, that he says "act of terror" rather than "terrorist act") has bothered to explain...





...has bothered to explain...









....how bloody ****ing SYNTAX is going to defeat terrorism!

 

[Arjay81]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Oh please... :lol:

What hogwash...

Said a charter member of the brainwashed Obama crew.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

I mean really. Let's say he says the word "radical Islamic terrorist".

Let's say that. Critics: what will your response be? Oh it's all lovely that he's said it, we like Obama now, yadda yadda?



Of course it won't be that. It'll be: cough cough, let's just drop that. Hmm...what can we get mad at now? I know! We still have those pics of him respecting foreign customs by bowing to foreign leaders in countries where bowing is appropriate. Let's get mad about the APOLOGY TOUR again!!!


Or some other such thing.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Said a charter member of the brainwashed Obama crew.

:lol: Obama is one of the worst things to ever happen to America and Hilary will be twice as bad but you go on with your political hackery if it makes you feel better. :lol:

 

[Bodi]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

I mean really. Let's say he says the word "radical Islamic terrorist".

Let's say that. Critics: what will your response be? Oh it's all lovely that he's said it, we like Obama now, yadda yadda?



Of course it won't be that. It'll be: cough cough, let's just drop that. Hmm...what can we get mad at now? I know! We still have those pics of him respecting foreign customs by bowing to foreign leaders in countries where bowing is appropriate. Let's get mad about the APOLOGY TOUR again!!!


Or some other such thing.

Some might but middle of the roaders like me would be relieved that he was finally bright enough to be honest.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Since you obviously have never visited this "reality" of yours perhaps you can explain what exactly Obama is doing to fight terrorism. It certainly isn't his vaunted bombing or protecting this nation.

Why do YOU spout such nonsense?

LOL! Sorry that you're so frightened you can't back up you own claims about 'appeasement' and Obama not indicting ISIS actions.

Not at all surprised, but it's a shame you can't deal with your own assertions.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

He doesnt recognize terrorism as a problem?

Not recognizing the source(s) of terrorism when they happen has been a particular problem of this President, at least in the public eye.

It's painfully obvious to everyone ever that he knows what's going on. He just refuses to call it like it is more often than not. I can only guess it's a blame dodging strategy.

 

[MorrisDay]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

What is the deeper meaning...?

He's affinity for the Muslim culture is obvious. As I stated in the rest of the post, it is a matter of sentiment for the culture - he identifies with it more so than the average conservative American "culture".

 

[Arjay81]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

:lol: Obama is one of the worst things to ever happen to America and Hilary will be twice as bad but you go on with your political hackery if it makes you feel better. :lol:

Just stating facts, which it appears that you say you agree with.

 

[Arjay81]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

LOL! Sorry that you're so frightened you can't back up you own claims about 'appeasement' and Obama not indicting ISIS actions.

Not at all surprised, but it's a shame you can't deal with your own assertions.

The real shame is that you actually believe what the liar in chief tells you and he supplies his false truth to convince you. Independent research is something you really should look into, at least once.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Just stating facts, which it appears that you say you agree with.

Wait... you say Obama "portrays the world as rainbows and unicorns"

I call that "hogwash and :lol:"

You insult me and call me "brainwashed" and part of his crew, I believe...

I say "Obama is one of the worst things to happen to America"

How does what you say above, in THIS context, make any sense at all? :lol:

I mean, if you want to just hate out of spite because you hate, that is fine...
but trying to insiuate that I am what I am not, especially when I flat out tell you, only makes you sound dim,

 

[Bodi]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

The real shame is that you actually believe what the liar in chief tells you and he supplies his false truth to convince you. Independent research is something you really should look into, at least once.

When you change the term to Liar in Chief it applies to all Presidents, even those you like, aren't you aware of how English works?

 

[Bodi]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

He's affinity for the Muslim culture is obvious. As I stated in the rest of the post, it is a matter of sentiment for the culture - he identifies with it more so than the average conservative American "culture".

Yes it is...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

The real shame is that you actually believe what the liar in chief tells you and he supplies his false truth to convince you. Independent research is something you really should look into, at least once.

I'm sorry reality frightens you so.

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

I voted "No" and here's why...

Republicans seem to think about confronting violent Muslim extremism as if they're in an AA or drug rehab meeting, i.e., "the first step to confronting your problem is to admit that you have a problem". Okay...

How many times during his tenure has President Obama said that terrorism (from the Middle-East) is a problem (specifically, from terrorist organizations like ISIL or homegrown terrorist) and that he would do everything in his power as Commander and Chief to defeat terrorism wherever it exists?

Obama: 'Global War on Terror' Is Over | US News

"We must define our effort not as a boundless 'Global War on Terror,' but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon. So that's the current threat: Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them."

Following Brussels attacks, Obama says world must unite to defeat terrorism - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

"We must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism. We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world."

Barack Obama Delivers Oval Office Terrorism Address

“The threat from terrorism is real but we will overcome it. We will destroy [ISIS] and any other organization that tries to harm us…we will prevail by being strong and smart.”

To some, he's can't possibly be serious about confronting radical Islamic terrorist because he's never used the term they choose to describe it. Well, this article from Politi-Fact (4/18/16) compares body count of Islamist between GW Bush and Obama:

For example, Bush launched about 60 strikes in Somalia, Pakistan and Yemen, according to data from the New America Foundation, killing a maximum of about 400 militants. Obama, on the other hand, has launched more than 500 strikes in those three countries, killing anywhere between 2,700 and 4,000 militants.

...

A 2015 report out of Brown University estimates that the number of Taliban deaths in Afghanistan may have been between 5,000 and 15,000 total over the course of the Bush administration, but up to 5,000 per year during the Obama administration.

There's also this article posted just today at MSN.com that gives some background into the President's thinking on confronting radical Islamic terrorism that may shed some light on things. So, when you step back and really look at this issue objectively, it doesn't matter what descriptive is used to describe the enemy. What matters most is whether or not the President (and his Administration) is doing everything he can to defeat terrorism wherever the treat may pop up? By the numbers, I'd say he's made some very good strides throughout his presidency. Of course, more could always be done. The question, however, is do we (Americans) have the stomach for it (another prolonged military confrontation abroad)?

 

[Redress]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

We've had this conversation in a number of threads so far. I will try to find the posts I made in those thread so I don't have to repeat myself.

I'll put them in with the link to the other thread so you can have context if you wish:

I had other posts as well, but I feel the above two sum up my thoughts. So, yes, it is important for the reasons stated above. Not to make him say the words, or to say something that sounds "Oooo, Scary" but again, the reasons above.

I cry for our education system, since problem solving skills should be an important part of education. What you have just described here is not problem solving skills. Terminology does not matter so much, as long as people know what is being talked about. Worse, this terminology is not accurate. Here, let's look at the wiki list of terrorism in the US(you can quibble about this or that attack, but it is a workable list): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present. Now try real hard looking at the list, even just the list since 2010, and see if you can figure out what the perpetrators have in common(hint: religion would be the wrong answer). Want a clue? it is extremism. Not islamic extremism, not any other specific type of extremism. Any other answer excludes part of the problem. So you tell me, is ignoring part of the problem a path to solving that problem?

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

His refusal to say it is sort of immaterial. His refusal to recognize it is the problem.

It lets our allies who are up to their necks in it understand that we are serious.

It lets everyone know that we recognize the threat for what it actually is, and that we're going to address it as such.

It would let people know that Obama actually understands what is actually happening and that the world is not rainbows and unicorns as he portrays it.

So, let's get this straight...

Before you can kill the enemy and inform our allies as to who we're really fighting, we have to name the enemy specifically.

How exactly would calling "terrorist" radical Muslim extremist, Islamic terrorist, jihadist or radical Islam change who wel kill on the battle field or how? I think it's safe to say that since the on-start of the global war on terror when reports began to circulate all around the world that American troops and/or bombers were killing terrorist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, our allies knew we recognized exactly what the problem was, who the treat was and that the situation was serious. The above comments tells me some people are simply part of the talk-radio/political pundit echo chamber as opposed to getting the facts for themselves.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?

Yes, it communicates to the entire Islamic world that Islam is the problem along with extremism. This will further accomplishing validating the feelings of those who believe we need to be at war with the entire Muslim civilization. And that is why both Obama and Bush did not use the words "Islamic terrorism."

In diplomacy, how you choose your words is important, which is why Trump should never ever be President.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Yes, it communicates to the entire Islamic world that Islam is the problem along with extremism. This will further accomplishing validating the feelings of those who believe we need to be at war with the entire Muslim civilization. And that is why both Obama and Bush did not use the words "Islamic terrorism."

In diplomacy, how you choose your words is important, which is why Trump should never ever be President.

The 'radical' first word of the term is completely discounted? That doesn't seem to be very accurate or diplomatic, looking to take offense at any opportunity (no doubt to try and gain some sort of illusionary advantage).

 

[Redress]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

The 'radical' first word of the term is completely discounted? That doesn't seem to be very accurate or diplomatic, looking to take offense at any opportunity (no doubt to try and gain some sort of illusionary advantage).

Kinda like how saying "happy holidays" is part of the war on chrismas. Religion is not something that comes from logic, so why would we expect people to be logical about it?

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kinda like how saying "happy holidays" is part of the war on chrismas. Religion is not something that comes from logic, so why would we expect people to be logical about it?

Ins't that really religious extremism and / or radicalism that we are talking about? Seems a pretty honest thing to do to call it what it really is.

I really don't care if some Muslims want to adhere to some fundamentalist sect that condemns them to a life circa 1200 years ago, that's their choice, after all.

Just as long as they don't go around raping, pillaging, and killing. Then I'll be forced to care, and those that have been going around raping, pillaging, and killing will have forfeit their lives for it.

 

[Redress]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Ins't that really religious extremism and / or radicalism that we are talking about? Seems a pretty honest thing to do to call it what it really is.

I really don't care if some Muslims want to adhere to some fundamentalist sect that condemns them to a life circa 1200 years ago, that's their choice, after all.

Just as long as they don't go around raping, pillaging, and killing. Then I'll be forced to care, and those that have been going around raping, pillaging, and killing will have forfeit their lives for it.

Extremism, yes. That is where this goes wrong. It is not islamic extremism, nor religious extremism, but extremism itself. When people take things too far, they can start to justify to themselves terrorism. So by limiting ourselves to any type of extremism, we are only tackling part of the problem. White nationalist extremists, and anti-abortion extremists, and others have all been, and will continue to be a threat, so why exclude them when talking about the threat of terror?

And further, and you can take my word or not on this, but I can tell you as an outsider, than you do kinda have to walk on eggshells when dealing with religion. People are very sensitive about the topic, and can very easily take things not as they are intended. This is true pretty much of all religions. And it is also true I think, on some issues, for every one. We all have our areas where we are more sensitive than maybe we should be. As an example, when people talk about my family members, I find I very easily take offense, even when none is intended.

The whole calling it radical islamic terrorism thing is appealing. It is a simple solution. It sounds great, easy to understand. Requires seemingly nothing. And as usual when dealing with complex issues, the easy solution is rarely the right one. If there was a nice, easy, tidy solution we would have by god found it now. We have a ****load of really bright people busting ass trying to figure out how best to attack the problem, and they have been doing it for years, and the problem is worse than when we started.

 

[X Factor]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Extremism, yes. That is where this goes wrong. It is not islamic extremism, nor religious extremism, but extremism itself. When people take things too far, they can start to justify to themselves terrorism. So by limiting ourselves to any type of extremism, we are only tackling part of the problem. White nationalist extremists, and anti-abortion extremists, and others have all been, and will continue to be a threat, so why exclude them when talking about the threat of terror?

Hey, great, if religion is completely irrelevant and all terrorists are the same can we go ahead and dispense with trying to silence things that might offend Muslims or immediately seeking to deflect criticism away from it when it happens? After all, you cite all this right wing and pro life terror and I'm pretty sure it's never occurred to you to ask in those cases "gee, what should the victims be doing to stop provoking it?"

It's also noticible that you sure don't seem to mind defining terrorists by their particular extremism (right wing nationalist and pro lifers) when it's not about Islam. The question really needs to be proposed to you, are you prepared to treat all extremism the same way?

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

His refusal to say it is sort of immaterial. His refusal to recognize it is the problem.

Yawn...Do you ever tire of regurgitating the same tired old talking points. You know that is a lie don't you?

Whenever the political world’s attention turns to matters of national security and terrorism, Republican criticisms of President Obama feature familiar talking points. The president isn’t “aggressive” enough, they say. His approach must be “tougher,” like the policies adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration.

Obama’s counter-terrorism policies are so ineffective, the right insists, that the White House won’t even use the specific words – “radical Islamic terrorism” – that Republicans demand to hear.

But the gap between GOP rhetoric and national-security reality continues to grow. We learned yesterday, for example, that a U.S. airstrike killed Nasir al-Wuhaysh, al Qaeda’s No. 2 official – and the top guy in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As Rachel noted on the show last night, his death is a “huge deal,” especially given the terrorist plots al-Wuhaysh has helped oversee.

NBC News had a helpful report yesterday on the frequency with which U.S. strikes have successfully targeted al Qaeda’s top leaders.

I’m reminded of this piece in The Atlantic last fall, when Jeffrey Goldberg, hardly a liberal, wrote, “Obama has become the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency.”

It’s a detail Republicans simply don’t know what to do with, so they ignore it and pretend the president is indifferent to matters of national security, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. While GOP officials and candidates continue to insist that what really matters is word-choice, Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy includes so many successes, they no longer generate much attention. Notice, for example, just how little chatter al-Wuhaysh’s death garnered yesterday.

The scope of Obama's counter-terrorism successes | MSNBC
Obama's Most Important Achievement in the Middle East - The Atlantic

 

[chromium]

Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Hey, great, if religion is completely irrelevant and all terrorists are the same can we go ahead and dispense with trying to silence things that might offend Muslims or immediately seeking to deflect criticism away from it when it happens? After all, you cite all this right wing and pro life terror and I'm pretty sure it's never occurred to you to ask in those cases "gee, what should the victims be doing to stop provoking it?"

It's also noticible that you sure don't seem to mind defining terrorists by their particular extremism (right wing nationalist and pro lifers) when it's not about Islam. The question really needs to be proposed to you, are you prepared to treat all extremism the same way?

are you starting with the 'victim provocation' / 'all victims are equally innocent' double speak again?