- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
[h=1]Obama refuses to acknowledge ‘Muslim terrorists’ at summit[/h]
WASHINGTON — They’re burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama delivered a major speech Wednesday on combating violent extremism — while refusing to use the words “Muslim terrorists.”
“No religion is responsible for terrorism — people are responsible for violence and terrorism,” Obama told a crowd that included Muslim community leaders at the White House.
Following months of unrelenting atrocities by ISIS killers who released videos of themselves beheading US journalists and, most recently, 21 Coptic Christians, and burning a man alive, the president kowtowed to the audience by proclaiming that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”
Obama refuses to acknowledge
Delusional, that's the best way I can describe it, you have an army, you have people joining this army, you have them flying jihadi flags of islam, they are telling you they are islamic, and thier quaran backs them up. They are up to 200,000 strong and that's not counting sympathizers.
What they do, they do in the name of allah, islam, and Jihad.
This president is ignorant, or being too soft and politically correct for what end I haven't a clue. Not knowing your enemy sun tzu and all that.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
I am not sure, what you are getting at.
Oh for Pete's sake. Did you notice that Muslim community leaders, law abiding citizens were being addressed as well. Yeah, too many people love conflict and provocation. By the way, by the end of the Bush administration, it was learned to be not wise either, and the language you'd like to hear coming from Obama, was expunged from the BA vocabulary!!
Bush administration document: "Never use the term 'jihadist.' " A May 2008 UPI article stated: "U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which 'unintentionally legitimize' terrorism." The document discourages the use of "ill-defined and offensive terminology," such as " 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims." The document from the National Counterterrorism Center goes on to state: "[N]ever use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahideen' in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means 'striving in the path of God' and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions."
I don't give a **** about bush, I am simply pointing out that we are engaged in fraud here, call a spade a spade and stop being a ***** president trying to redefine reality.
Hypocrite. It was determined during the last year of the Bush administration that the language you'd like to hear from Obama was counterproductive and actually legitimised terrorism!!!!!! WHAT ****ING PART OF THAT IS DIFFICULT FOR YOU, HMM?
Who's a hypocrite? Me? When did I determine what now?
Are you infirm?
The gang criticising Obama for continuing a Bush era practice!
Bush was wrong to. I am still not sure if you meant me or what now or if this was just some sort of glorious red herring for you.
If your willing to declare that Bush was wrong too, then I haven't a quarrel with you.
So uhm you are chasing windmills in this thread?
No, I hadn't heard you criticise Bush for expunging references to Islamic extremism and jihad. So, now that I see your consistent, I haven't a quarrel with you. Carry on.
Well sire, if the landed gentry approves of the peasants meager opinion to go forth, how shall I ever repay you!
/facepalm
Hmm, looks like someone's itching for a 'crusade'.
No, I hadn't heard you criticise Bush for expunging references to Islamic extremism and jihad. So, now that I see your consistent, I haven't a quarrel with you. Carry on.
Oh for Pete's sake. Did you notice that Muslim community leaders, law abiding citizens were being addressed as well. Yeah, too many people love conflict and provocation. By the way, by the end of the Bush administration, it was learned to be not wise either, and the language you'd like to hear coming from Obama, was expunged from the BA vocabulary!!
Bush administration document: "Never use the term 'jihadist.' " A May 2008 UPI article stated: "U.S. officials are being advised in internal government documents to avoid referring publicly to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups as Islamic or Muslim, and not to use terms like jihad or mujahedin, which 'unintentionally legitimize' terrorism." The document discourages the use of "ill-defined and offensive terminology," such as " 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims." The document from the National Counterterrorism Center goes on to state: "[N]ever use the terms 'jihadist' or 'mujahideen' in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means 'striving in the path of God' and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions."
The logic is absurd. Calling someone a murderer does not legitimize murder.
If you see the president's job as defending and legitimizing the concept of "Holy warrior" - and then claiming ISIS aren't - what is it? I see NO reason or authority for the President to legitimize "Holy Islamic warrior" in ANY context.
"Crusader" has many positive meanings too, doesn't it? Crusading for justice, for civil rights, and, historically, to fight invading Muslim armies. The President had no problem using that word as a generic evil, did he?
Now you claim you are a Bush supporter and since Bush did something similar then it is right for Obama to do it too. That's your point, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?