Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

[GaryTaylor]

“vast majority of Muslims” support our efforts

Commonly abused statement that only points to terrorism, thats not the issue, American assimilation is.

51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

investors.com/politics/perspective/tapper-scolding-of-carson-ignores-islamic-fifth-column-building-inside-america/

Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”…

Many look past DC is if its not even there.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its imperative we use precise language in understanding the dynamics of Islam and the paths to radicalization. The Obama administration and CAIR and many have intentionally avoided this conversation and reality. Terrorism is merely the smoke and mirror. Obamas tactical speech was ego and yelling and blame all to avoid a needed conversation by looking right past the points, same as radical islamists do in fact. Saudi Wahhabism dominates American Muslims and these are the conversations which need to take place. Axiomatic to that truth: We can’t win a war against an enemy we refuse to name. Further the only enemy isn’t who Obama calls an enemy, the enemy is the path that leads to radicalization, not simply the realized radicals at the far end.

He is mistaken or intentional, either way wrong. Truth is el Sisi summed all this well last year with islamic religious reform. Obama only wants to acknowledge the radicals once radicalized, and not even call them radicals let alone address the real issue. Its a complete failure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not the Muslims worried about being beheaded that are in danger of being radicalized by American rhetoric. But the much larger group of Muslims that are not immediately threatened by terrorism and are unsure about the US and are in danger of being radicalized. There is no reason to concede this group to ISIS. Better to isolate ISIS as much as possible. I see no positive military benefit of emphasizing the claimed religion of the terrorists.

By your logic, if merely using words to identify radical Islamists as terrorists will trigger radicalization of the “larger group of Muslims,” then, surely, military response in the ME by American, French and other countries will trigger far more radicalization of these people.

Better, then, to stop all military response, lay down our weapons and surrender to any Muslim of any stripe lest the moderates are radicalized more than they have been by our resistance, reaction and use of words.

Submission to Islam and its ideology, then, would be – paradoxically – our only course for achieving peace, harmony and the good will of Muslims worldwide.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Its imperative we use precise language in understanding the dynamics of Islam and the paths to radicalization.

Yes, but it is even more imperative that we use precise language when describing individual acts of terrorism, especially in cases like the Orlando shooting, which as more mental illness than terrorism. He was a frequent patron of that same club. Understanding the paths to radicalization is quite different from indiscriminately labeling many acts of terrorism “Islamic”. That adds nothing to precise understanding.

The Obama administration and CAIR and many have intentionally avoided this conversation and reality. Terrorism is merely the smoke and mirror. Obamas tactical speech was ego and yelling and blame all…

For a minute I thought you were describing Trump. (Yelling, blaming, ego: these are Trumps specialities.)

Axiomatic to that truth: We can’t win a war against an enemy we refuse to name.

Misnaming the enemy does not help either.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

By your logic, if merely using words to identify radical Islamists as terrorists will trigger radicalization of the “larger group of Muslims,” then, surely, military response in the ME by American, French and other countries will trigger far more radicalization of these people.

Thank you for bringing that up. Indiscriminate use of force against a whole population would indeed trigger a negative response among that population. Which is why the US and its allies are trying so hard to narrowly target and isolate the terrorists from the population in which they are embedded.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you for bringing that up. Indiscriminate use of force against a whole population would indeed trigger a negative response among that population. Which is why the US and its allies are trying so hard to narrowly target and isolate the terrorists from the population in which they are embedded.

Are you referring the Obama/Hillary instituted invasion of Libya or the nearly daily killing of Non-Combatants by Obama approved drone strikes?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Are you referring the Obama/Hillary instituted invasion of Libya or the nearly daily killing of Non-Combatants by Obama approved drone strikes?

Obviously we are not trying hard enough.

 

[sallybutler]

Why not call them Radical ISIS Terrorists. Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, but it is even more imperative that we use precise language when describing individual acts of terrorism, especially in cases like the Orlando shooting, which as more mental illness than terrorism. .

If its terrorism or not mental heath is in play unless you contend Isis sympathizers practice good mental health. “More” of anything is speculation and doesn’t help the conversation its not a fact.

He was a frequent patron of that same club. Understanding the paths to radicalization is quite different from indiscriminately labeling many acts of terrorism “Islamic”. That adds nothing to precise understanding.

He was islamic and pledged alliance to Isis. Your avoiding factual reality here, the fact he had other issues is more like another straw that broke the camels back.

For a minute I thought you were describing Trump. (Yelling, blaming, ego: these are Trumps specialities.)

Trump is willing to amend his conversation and apparently so is HIllary as she NOW has no issue stating “radical Islam” So no I reject your comparison and like mine to radical Imam=Obama better.

Misnaming the enemy does not help either.

Doesn’t change the axiom.

The final act as we see in Fla is not the issue it is A issue, a symptom of the issue.

And guess what, assimilated US adults are actually capable of this conversation without hate crimes against anyone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why not call them Radical ISIS Terrorists. Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

Yes, it would. But apparently people are more interested in denigrating Islam than in denigrating ISIS.

 

[Crossbones]

Yes, it would. But apparently people are more interested in denigrating Islam than in denigrating ISIS.

Would that qualify in this case? The fellow probably wasn’t ISIS.

If we want to be accurately, we should call this what it is: ‘a gay homophobic, wife-beating Islamic, mentally ill terrorist’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Trump is willing to amend his conversation

Well, that is news to me. Please cite where Trump has “amended his conversation”. All I see is him doubling down on every outrageous thing he has ever said.

and apparently so is HIllary as she NOW has no issue stating “radical Islam”

Again, I need your source on this. I heard Hillary’s speech after Orlando, and she did not label the shooting “Islamic” anything.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But apparently people are more interested in denigrating Islam than in denigrating ISIS.

Now your saying with vague wording all assimilated americans have mental health issues and are not capable of conducting themselves appropriately. Its insulting and its another issue with Obamas unacceptable position. Assimilated americans all don’t have mental issues and all don’t want to degrade anyone. Its a Obama straw man.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m just not convinced that a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration will do much to thwart terrorist attacks on our soil. We have as much of a problem of Muslim, Natural Born American citizens committing terrorist attacks on our soil as we do Muslim immigrants committing terrorist attacks on our soil. Our most recent terrorist attack was committed by an American Citizen.

Starting with the September 11, 2001:

Terrorist attacks by natural born Muslim Americans

1. February 16-23, 2002–John Allen Muhammed (Beltway Sniper), Born in Illinois
2. June 1, 2009—Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad(Little Rock recruiting office shooting), Born in Tennessee
3. November 5, 2009— Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood Shooting), Born in Virginia
4. October 23 2014— Zale Thompson (Queens Hatchet Attack)
5. May 3, 2015---- Elton Simpson, born in Illinois; Nadir Soofi, Born in Texas; Abdul Kareem, Born in Pennsylvania (Curtis Culwell Center Attackers).
6. December 2, 2015— Syed Rizwan Farook (San Bernardino Shooter), Born in Illinois
7. June 12, 2016—Omar Mateen (Orlando Night club shooter), Born in New York

Terrorist attacks by Muslim Non-Americans

1. September 11, 2001—19 perpetrators
2. July 4, 2002-- LA airport attack, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, Egyptian National
3. April 15, 2013–Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnev (Boston Marathon Bombers) Born in Krzygstan and USSR
4. July 16 2015—Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, (Chattanooga Shootings), Born in Kuwait.
5. December 2, 2015—Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino Shooter), Born in Russia

Then I could make another colossal list of terrorist attacks committed by Natural Born American Terrorists on our soil, since September 11. (The 2013 Wichita Bombing attempt, The Colorado Movie Theater Massacre, The Newtown Massacre…to name a few, but if I were to make a list it’d be way too long).

In all honesty I just don’t see how a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration will make us safer.

If Islam is indeed a problem then immigration changes will at least not make things worse. Also if Islam is indeed a problem it would be nice if social pressure could be applied, but that is illegal. If we as a society think occasional mass killings are a worthy price for open immigration and prohibition of social pressure then we have to accept that. It seems to me we aren’t as most people want change and many even want to sacrifice the rights guaranteed to Americans.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, that is news to me. Please cite where Trump has “amended his conversation”. All I see is him doubling down on every outrageous thing he has ever said.

Semantics and not a point.

Again, I need your source on this. I heard Hillary’s speech after Orlando, and she did not label the shooting “Islamic” anything.

You need a source to prove your point we disagree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Semantics and not a point.

Huh? You say Trump has amended his conversation. I have no idea what you are talking about, since I have never seen him do any such thing. So unless you don’t mind being seen as just making stuff up, it would be good to cite a link that illustrates such a thing happening.

You need a source to prove your point we disagree.

Here is my source: Hillary’s speech. You say Hilliary has now taken to using the label “Islamic terrorism”. I challenge you to show where she is doing this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Huh? You say Trump has amended his conversation. I have no idea what you are talking about, since I have never seen him do any such thing. .

Here is my source: Hillary’s speech. You say Hilliary has now taken to using the label “Islamic terrorism”. I challenge you to show where she is doing this.

I;m not interested in any of this.

 

[Darryl1958]

If, indeed, the “vast majority of Muslims” support our efforts against terrorism, use of the term “radical Islam” or equivalents aren’t going to change that. If a Middle EAstern Muslim, for example, is worried about being beheaded, his wife raped to death and his children butchered, and looks to America to save him from it, American terminology is the very least of his concerns. And that’s particularly true if he uses the same or similar terminology himself. He might actually find it comforting that America finally understands what he’s facing.

The lady in Regular Atheist’s video did at any rate.
To paraphrase, she said that she didn’t need liberals in America defending her religion.
What she needed was liberals in America defending her from those who threaten her from death.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Yes, but it is even more imperative that we use precise language when describing individual acts of terrorism, especially in cases like the Orlando shooting, which as more mental illness than terrorism. He was a frequent patron of that same club. Understanding the paths to radicalization is quite different from indiscriminately labeling many acts of terrorism “Islamic”. That adds nothing to precise understanding.

For a minute I thought you were describing Trump. (Yelling, blaming, ego: these are Trumps specialities.)

Misnaming the enemy does not help either.

Classifying acts of terrorism as “mental illness” is like what the Obama Administration did in classifying the Fort Hood shooting (by a Muslim officer) as “workplace violence.” This kind of wordplay is both dangerous, ineffective, and ultimately fatal to both individuals and our society.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I;m not interested in any of this.

Then don’t go making statements about things you are not interested enough in to investigate.