Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

[LeafByNiggle]

How can you engage in a discussion of cancer when the use of the word ‘cancer’ is off limits…

Your analogy calls on circular reasoning, because to apply it to terrorism you must first establish that it is caused by Islam itself, which is exactly what we are arguing about, and which has not been established.

 

[irishpatrick]

It is hardly bickering about words. It is calling Obama out on blaming Republicans and even Americans who ‘need to be sorry’, while never, ever acknowledging that what is the threat to peace globally in this era is Islamist radicalism.

How can you engage in a discussion of cancer when the use of the word ‘cancer’ is off limits, and people insist on using the word 'cancer; anyway become the focus as a result of their “obsession”?
I assure you, if the issue is petty and unworthy, then there would be no reason for the left to insist on not calling a thing by its name.

No, you don’t understand how the left plays the game. They constantly set traps that the right falls into. Obama could easily use that phrase, but he knows it drives the right nuts that he doesn’t…so he and the left keep pushing that button until the right lashes back, and every time the right lashes back about such small things, it looks petty and unworthy of the office.

In this situation Obama comes across as stately and mature. While Trump and the Republicans come across as petty and childish.

The left knows that a large swath of the country is not very well informed, and they know most people react on an emotional level–so they push all those buttons. Far more people think Obama was right to slam the Republicans, than not.

The left plays in the major leagues, while the right plays in T-Ball.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The evidence for him being radicalized by Islam is similarly weak. But that is what people here are saying.

In a way I feel sorry for the terrorists, they go to all this effort to make a point and put spread fear in the name of Islam.

…and then over and over again we tell them no. You didn’t do it because of Islam, you did it because of guns, or republicans, or American imperialism, or violent video games, or poverty, or a lack of education etc. etc.

What will it take for us to believe them?

 

[irishpatrick]

In a way I feel sorry for the terrorists, they go to all this effort to make a point and put spread fear in the name of Islam.

…and then over and over again we tell them no. You didn’t do it because of Islam, you did it because of guns, or republicans, or American imperialism, or violent video games, or poverty, or a lack of education etc. etc.

What will it take for us to believe them?

Most do not want to believe.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If by “amended her position” you mean that she has decided to call this “Islamic terrorism”, no she has not done that.

She not only amended she flip flopped.

Clinton: It’s radical Islamism, but don’t demonize 01:11

I have clearly said we – whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing."

and

What I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for our efforts to defeat this threat, is to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion

Translation she won’t make the connection from radical Islam such as with existing various groups, to mainline Islam from which these paths to radicalization stem from and thus no path to reform. Its unacceptable.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserts that she has no problem using the words “radical jihadism” or “radical Islamism” when describing the terrorist threat posed by ISIS, but in December she resisted the term.

“You know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing, I’m happy to say either,” Clinton said Monday in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

In December 2015, Clinton defended her decision not to use the term “radical Islam” after the attacks in San Bernardino.

“The problem is that sounds like we’re declaring a war against religion,” she said during an interview with George Stephanopoulos who asked her about the term. “And that to me is number one, wrong.”

“Even though the qualifier radical is there?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“I don’t want to do that, because, number one, it doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful people,” Clinton said, saying that there are extreme elements in “every religion in the world.”

Clinton added that she was worried that the use of the term “radical Islam” helped create a “clash of civilizations” that helped ISIS recruit more Muslims.

She explained in December that she wanted to send a different message to the Muslim community in the United States.

“If you’re a law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are distorting” Islam, Clinton said.

The problem is though she flop flopped, she still falls short in trusting assimilated americans, yet she has no issue trusting those who she claims “need to be with us”. islam distorts itself with its own paths to radicalize. Though she took a step Obama didn’t she is still wrong.

Her flip better highlights the flaws of the Obama politics

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In a way I feel sorry for the terrorists, they go to all this effort to make a point and put spread fear in the name of Islam.

…and then over and over again we tell them no. You didn’t do it because of Islam, you did it because of guns, or republicans, or American imperialism, or violent video games, or poverty, or a lack of education etc. etc.

What will it take for us to believe them?

It does not matter what they believe. What matters is what the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims believe about our intentions. That is our audience when we use words like “Islamic terrorism”.

 

[irishpatrick]

Not sure I follow you there…but I have come to believe that this hard left ideology Obama and our secular, liberal culture espouses functions with the piety and rigidity of a religion. One “accepts” it - it is not negotiable. You can’t question it without incurring wrath, very fierce wrath at that (just check out a thread or two here).

It doesn’t matter how much effort you have to put into maintaining it against reality - that is the whole point - therein lies the heroism. It is a buffer against reality. Opiate of the atheists.

Which is why in the end the vast majority of Democrats will vote for Hillary. They truly are not the free thinkers they so much like to claim–in the end they always vote in lock step.

I overheard a conversation once during which a lifetime Democrat said to a sibling that they never would have believed that anyone in their family could be anything but a Democrat. It is so entrenched in their thinking that it overcomes everything else, including families ties and religion. That is why Democrats often cling to their party more so than even their self-professed Catholic faith. Being a Democrat is more at their true core, than being a Catholic is and they cannot conceive of a time in which they would not be a Democrat. To them, when people they know who were long term Democrats leave the party, they are truly shocked, as if the person has done an unthinkable act. All of this explains why a Democratic Party Catholic can support candidates who are pro-abortion–it is because being followers of the Democratic Party means more to them, than being followers of Christ.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

She not only amended she flip flopped.

I read all your quotes, and on the issue of labeling these events “Islamic terrorism”, she has been consistent. She has not done it.

The only quote that even comes close to “amending” on that issue is when she says “I don’t care if you call it… or …”, where she was making the same consistent point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I read all your quotes, .

I expect that much. But lets be clear you have an “opinion” which I don’t share.

 

[adowcday]

The core of leftist ideology is that American culture and imperialism are the real threat to world peace and stability, for all intents and purposes, let’s call it the real “evil.” The Obama “yes we can” project was to re-engineer America out of this mode - American identity and power are undercut internationally and domestically - this is also of course the push for cultural relativism. American culture, Christianity are relative, even bad, violent, etc. The buzz word is tolerance. This is the leveling of cultures - in fact though, the real aim is to delegitimize American, Christian culture, values. (decked out as a rainbow of relativism)

When events undercut this narrative - all hell breaks loose. I actually think Obama is shocked, genuinely. (remember this stuff is believed; its untruth, limitations not acknowledged) But to admit failure or error here is to gut the whole message - will never never happen for obvious reasons.

President Obama’s policies or those of the Democratic party bear no resemblance whatsoever with what you have branded “leftist ideology.” Where do you get this stuff? It’s just wrong.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton, for example, believe that American identity and power are important and want to increase it internationally. However, they disagree with the GOP in how to do so. Invading Iraq, for example, was intended to be an exercise of American power but ended up reducing it in the Middle East. The slower, more patient exercise of gaining and building alliances, using diplomacy to the fullest extent and using our military might more surgically will not satisfy the neocons but is more likely to achieve American aims and improve American influence.

 

[adowcday]

The evidence for him being radicalized by Islam is similarly weak. But that is what people here are saying.

It’s not weak. It’s nonexistent. There is no evidence for Obama being a “secret muslim.” In fact, he’s been a pretty terrible radical muslim if you take into account his attacks against the leadership of Al Qaeda and ISIS and other efforts to stamp them out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It’s not weak. It’s nonexistent. There is no evidence for Obama being a “secret muslim.” In fact, he’s been a pretty terrible radical muslim if you take into account his attacks against the leadership of Al Qaeda and ISIS and other efforts to stamp them out.

No-one said hes a muslim but it is true he has connections and relations and issues questionable with his own brother, the muslim brotherhood and arming Morsi to slaughter innocent people. Then unlike his very friends he works with like he and Hillary have been touting, SA, Eqypt all condemned the MB plus many others. Us, we have them in the white house. I don’t think he’s muslim, I would be insulting them,

President Obama’s policies or those of the Democratic party bear no resemblance whatsoever with what you have branded “leftist ideology.” Where do you get this stuff? It’s just wrong.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton, for example, believe that American identity and power are important and want to increase it internationally. However, they disagree with the GOP in how to do so. Invading Iraq, for example, was intended to be an exercise of American power but ended up reducing it in the Middle East. The slower, more patient exercise of gaining and building alliances, using diplomacy to the fullest extent and using our military might more surgically will not satisfy the neocons but is more likely to achieve American aims and improve American influence.

Diplomacy like with the Iran deal and its lies? They want to kill you here, do you realize that and its not changing in fact they repeated the line. In fact they believe in the absolute truth and I think its time we accept that and believe them.

Obama and Hillary haven’t done a damn thing to increase american identity or power. In fact they are a laughing stock world wide, a basic joke.

What alliance, Obama already lied about a 60 member fantasy and what happened?

For example, Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, further they lost interest and pulled out and “presto” we are back today with a new radical breed called isis, the JV team Obama also minimized while it metastasised. He lied and kicked the can down the road to the next President, and while today we are in the same area we already fought over, and again today the “good innocent citizens” everyone is so concerned about with torture and collateral damage, yeah, they are being killed again and frankly because of this failed administration and its terrible foreign policy.

Oddly this same speech in question, Obama gives himself a pat on the back and takes another victory lap over the slam up job he did with isis. Only in the imagination was that reality.

 

[Inisfallen]

Which is why in the end the vast majority of Democrats will vote for Hillary. They truly are not the free thinkers they so much like to claim–in the end they always vote in lock step.

I overheard a conversation once during which a lifetime Democrat said to a sibling that they never would have believed that anyone in their family could be anything but a Democrat. It is so entrenched in their thinking that it overcomes everything else, including families ties and religion. That is why Democrats often cling to their party more so than even their self-professed Catholic faith. Being a Democrat is more at their true core, than being a Catholic is and they cannot conceive of a time in which they would not be a Democrat. To them, when people they know who were long term Democrats leave the party, they are truly shocked, as if the person has done an unthinkable act. All of this explains why a Democratic Party Catholic can support candidates who are pro-abortion–it is because being followers of the Democratic Party means more to them, than being followers of Christ.

Right, sure, absolutely. I “always vote in lock step” because I won’t vote for that hustler Donald Trump.

Or voting Democratic means that party affiliation is more important to me than my faith.

Look, that’s all nonsense. And kind of insulting.

I know why I’m a registered Democrat. And I know why I’m a Catholic. And I know which is more important to me.

 

[ARSpade]

Right, sure, absolutely. I “always vote in lock step” because I won’t vote for that hustler Donald Trump.

Or voting Democratic means that party affiliation is more important to me than my faith.

Look, that’s all nonsense. And kind of insulting.

I know why I’m a registered Democrat. And I know why I’m a Catholic. And I know which is more important to me.

Is it because you support abortion? That’s a big deal for most Dems I know. Abortion with no restrictions, kill 'em at 8 months if you like.

 

[Inisfallen]

Is it because you support abortion? That’s a big deal for most Dems I know. Abortion with no restrictions, kill 'em at 8 months if you like.

No.

 

[ARSpade]

No.

Aborton is like a top 5 Dem issue. It’s almost all they talked about last election. So I guess you’re just “meh” about the issue? Or think the rest of the Dem platform outweighs a big ol pile of dead chopped up babies?

Genuinely curious here.

 

[Inisfallen]

Aborton is like a top 5 Dem issue. It’s almost all they talked about last election. So I guess you’re just “meh” about the issue? Or think the rest of the Dem platform outweighs a big ol pile of dead chopped up babies?

Genuinely curious here.

Not that I owe you an explanation, but I registered as a Democrat many years ago because, for all practical purposes, the Democratic primary in New York City was the general election.

I’m not “meh” about abortion. Don’t make uneducated guesses. But I think Donald Trump’s pro-life credentials are (to say the very least) suspect.

I also find most of the Republican platform utterly inconsistent with everything I learned in 13 years of Catholic school, and growing up in a Catholic family.

 

[irishpatrick]

Right, sure, absolutely. I “always vote in lock step” because I won’t vote for that hustler Donald Trump.

Or voting Democratic means that party affiliation is more important to me than my faith.

Look, that’s all nonsense. And kind of insulting.

I know why I’m a registered Democrat. And I know why I’m a Catholic. And I know which is more important to me.

I am sure you are speaking the truth and I meant no offense. I do have a couple follow-up thoughts.

If your Catholic faith is more important to you than your loyalty to the Democratic Party, then how do you manage to ignore the absolute sin that party places in its own platform, sins that cause the deaths of millions of innocents?

The GOP, being a human institution, has it own areas of weakness and sin, yet I know of no GOP party platform that results in 60,000,000 innocents killed in 35 years.

 

[irishpatrick]

Not that I owe you an explanation, but I registered as a Democrat many years ago because, for all practical purposes, the Democratic primary in New York City was the general election.

I’m not “meh” about abortion. Don’t make uneducated guesses. But I think Donald Trump’s pro-life credentials are (to say the very least) suspect.

I also find most of the Republican platform utterly inconsistent with everything I learned in 13 years of Catholic school, and growing up in a Catholic family.

Perhaps you need to learn more about the Republican platform (rather than listening to the horrible caricature the left espouses). I am a well formed Catholic and I see nothing overtly in the GOP platform that goes against the faith (there are many Republican leaders who go against the faith, but they are NOT the official platform). Please, take the time to read the actual platform:

prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

As for Trump, in truth I spent months trying to convince people to not vote for him. I felt any of the other 16 GOP candidates were better than him. Yet, today, we have two choices, and I believe that while Trump is not truly pro-life, I do believe he will make far better choices for the Supreme Court, than will Hillary. Anyone paying attention knows that the legality of abortion relies on the SC–and let us not forget religious liberties and all other critical issues for which the SC has the final word.

There is no comparison between the platforms of the two parties.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Which is why in the end the vast majority of Democrats will vote for Hillary. They truly are not the free thinkers they so much like to claim–in the end they always vote in lock step.

I overheard a conversation once during which a lifetime Democrat said to a sibling that they never would have believed that anyone in their family could be anything but a Democrat. It is so entrenched in their thinking that it overcomes everything else, including families ties and religion. That is why Democrats often cling to their party more so than even their self-professed Catholic faith. Being a Democrat is more at their true core, than being a Catholic is and they cannot conceive of a time in which they would not be a Democrat. To them, when people they know who were long term Democrats leave the party, they are truly shocked, as if the person has done an unthinkable act. All of this explains why a Democratic Party Catholic can support candidates who are pro-abortion–it is because being followers of the Democratic Party means more to them, than being followers of Christ.

Same lock step thing can be imagined about some Republicans. But some people are not one issues voters and although abortion is an important issue it is established law now since 1973. So all other issues are held hostage by this one that has not changed in 43 years? Meanwhile…