Obama Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Tidings
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
musivc said:
I’m a very religious Catholic. I understand the way my religion affects my life…even when it is really difficult.

To understand why “Islamic Terrorism” needs to be addressed is because of the explicit instructions in their un-holy book as to how infidels need to be dealt with. If a Muslim goes by the book then he is just doing what his religion tells him to do. This will go on forever.

I’m not an apologist for any politician- however, It doesn’t help when B. Hussein Obama succumbs to political correctness. FT. HOOD, BOSTON, SAN BERNADINO, ORLANDO, PARIS, BRUSSELS, etc…
Click to expand...
 
grotto said:
When Obama lovers and all things Democrat cannot shield themselves from criticism for their unacceptable choices they get very rude. Political correctness has been their hiding place where they can cry foul and play the victim. The bubble world they crave is popping and how will they ever get along with reality!

Islamic terrorism is real and as much as Obamites think they are above being used as a targeted infidel, they are at risk as well. The word “radical” and the root word "Islam"ic sends them into spasms of outrage. Think about it and the result is the same. Nonsense.
Click to expand...
I’m not an “Obamaite”, or a Democrat. In fact, I never voted Democrat, and unless they actually become a party for the working class, I never will vote Democrat. In fact, I consider them the worse of the lot.

In 2008, I voted Libertarian. In 2012, I entered a protest vote for Cthulhu. This year, I’m likely going to vote third party, since I don’t feel that either candidate is worthy of the title “president”.

“Radical” doesn’t outrage me. Neither does “Islamic”, although I simply question if there’s a merit to feeding terrorism. With the recent terrorist attacks, globally, innocent Muslims are becoming targets and when politicians feed the flames, I can’t help but feel neither side really wants to keep us safe.
 
Good_Tidings said:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully rebuked Republicans who have berated him for refusing to characterize lone wolf terror attacks by Muslim individuals as acts of “radical Islam.”
Speaking from the Treasury Department two days after a Muslim man shot 49 people to death at a gay nightclub in Orlando after declaring allegiance to the self-described Islamic State group, the president challenged his detractors to identify a single tangible benefit of adjusting his choice of words to describe the attack.
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama asked rhetorically, using another name for the Islamic State.
“The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-radical-islam_us_57603cdbe4b0e4fe5143dc4c
Click to expand...
Of course he would say this. He has to uphold his reputation at those Iftar parties, doesn’t he? 😉
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Trump and his supporters obviously cannot.
Click to expand...
And, apparently, neither can the FBI, Homeland Security, the US department responsible for immigration, the San Bernardino police department, the DOJ, a myriad of governmental agencies, neighbors and coworkers – that is, until AFTER a crime of terror has been committed.

Now if all these agencies responsible for the security of American citizens have a problem distinguishing between radical Islamists and ordinary Muslims, why would we expect Trump and his followers to be more capable than the supposed “experts” of making that distinction?

You are not claiming to have unusual powers/expertise in the area, are you?
 
Peter_Plato said:
And, apparently, neither can the FBI, Homeland Security, the US department responsible for immigration, the San Bernardino police department, the DOJ, a myriad of governmental agencies, neighbors and coworkers – that is, until AFTER a crime of terror has been committed.

Now if all these agencies responsible for the security of American citizens have a problem distinguishing between radical Islamists and ordinary Muslims, why would we expect Trump and his followers to be more capable than the supposed “experts” of making that distinction?

You are not claiming to have unusual powers/expertise in the area, are you?
Click to expand...
You miss the point. Because we cannot distinguish them on a one to one basis is not just cause to ban them all. We need to know their personal ideology.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
You miss the point. Because we cannot distinguish them on a one to one basis is not just cause to ban them all. We need to know their personal ideology.
Click to expand...
Well, if the stakes are very high – as is being shown by the perpetrated attacks – perhaps a ban until some reasonable means to distinguish between them is a prudential interim solution.

I don’t think Trump has suggested anything more than that.

Otherwise, there is no way of knowing precisely how many radical Islamists are being admitted daily. As you said yourself, “…we cannot distinguish them” without knowing their “personal ideology.” And yet, “personal ideology” is precisely what daren’t be inquired about.

A bit of a pickle we’ve got ourselves in, don’t you think?
 
Used2beSherryG said:
The only other choice is too horrible to even consider. I am a devout Catholic who believes everything the Church teaches. I could never vote for HRC. She’s rabidly defensive about Planned Parenthood and the whole abortion on demand issue, up to the moment of the baby’s natural birth (and beyond, in the case of a failed abortion attempt). She has shown herself to be a liar and a crook. I have no choice but to vote for Donald Trump. He is not a crooked politician and is not getting his palm greased by special interest groups. I want our country back, I want politicians to live by the same rules we average citizens play by, have the same insurance as we do, and the same retirement plan we have. I am fed up with the Ds and the Rs. Obama is the worst president we have ever had. He has done more to bring this country to it’s knees than I could have ever imagined possible.
Click to expand...
:

👍👍👍
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, if the stakes are very high – as is being shown by the perpetrated attacks – perhaps a ban until some reasonable means to distinguish between them is a prudential interim solution.

I don’t think Trump has suggested anything more than that.

Otherwise, there is no way of knowing precisely how many radical Islamists are being admitted daily. As you said yourself, “…we cannot distinguish them” without knowing their “personal ideology.” And yet, “personal ideology” is precisely what daren’t be inquired about.

A bit of a pickle we’ve got ourselves in, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
👍

Our own government is clamping down on immigration from Bangladesh for similar reasons. Nothing wrong with prudence. 🙂
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, if the stakes are very high – as is being shown by the perpetrated attacks – perhaps a ban until some reasonable means to distinguish between them is a prudential interim solution.

I don’t think Trump has suggested anything more than that.

Otherwise, there is no way of knowing precisely how many radical Islamists are being admitted daily. As you said yourself, “…we cannot distinguish them” without knowing their “personal ideology.” And yet, “personal ideology” is precisely what daren’t be inquired about.

A bit of a pickle we’ve got ourselves in, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
What about the ones already here like the recent shooter? Deport them all? Even citizens? Where do you draw the line?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Those Muslims who are beheaded, raped, see their relatives killed and so on by radical Islamists aren’t likely to embrace them just because somebody here calls those radicals by what they are, and by what many Muslims, themselves, call them.
Click to expand...
So, you have identified a small subset of Muslims who will not embrace terrorism even if the west calls it Islamic. So what? There is a vastly larger set of Muslims who are quite removed from the direct effects of those terrorists. They are susceptible to radicalization. We know that because it happens. And the transition from mainstream to extremist is made more likely when the west alienates them. Of course not all mainstream Muslims will become extremists because of this. But it only takes a tiny fraction of the 1.6 billion Muslims to cause lots of trouble. It behooves us to avoid creating more terrorists this way. And it costs us nothing to avoid doing that.
 
musivc said:
It is not my attention to try to do anything else except remind people that in the Koran Muslims are given explicit instructions as to how to deal with infidels. As long as we neglect that, keep telling ourselves that these murders have nothing to do with Islam, then this will keep going on forever.
Click to expand...
Why is your reading of the Koran more relevant than the interpretation of the majority of Muslims themselves? I don’t care what “the book” says. What matters is how mainstream Muslims interpret it. If they choose to ignore certain parts of it, or live in outright contradiction with the literal meaning of their book, what is that to us? That is why your reading of the Koran, as accurate as it might be, is still irrelevant to deciding how to relate to Muslims.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is exactly by being weak that we aid the radicals and add to the oppression of those Muslims who really don’t want to adopt violent jihad. Refusing to even name the enemy everybody knows is the enemy shows weakness.
Click to expand...
No, it shows the strength to resist the temptation of saying what “feels good” at the expense of solid military strategy.

Your assumptions about our arrogance being effective in stopping violent jihad are founded on your reading of the Koran. Most Muslims do not read it that way, which makes your way irrelevant, even if it is literally accurate.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
What about the ones already here like the recent shooter? Deport them all? Even citizens? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
You aren’t claiming that we should draw no lines merely because where to properly draw the line is somewhat of a challenge?

The shooter’s father supports the Taliban in Afghanistan. Perhaps if the line were drawn a few years ago, neither the father nor the son would have become citizens. It would have saved over a hundred citizens from being killed or wounded.

Our reticence to draw any line today may exacerbate that toll tens, hundreds or thousands of times over the next few years.

Perhaps we will put off the decision and have ourselves another discussion on where the line ought to be drawn in ten years when the US or Europe begins to look like Syria, Iraq or Libya?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, it shows the strength to resist the temptation of saying what “feels good” at the expense of solid military strategy.

Your assumptions about our arrogance being effective in stopping violent jihad are founded on your reading of the Koran. Most Muslims do not read it that way, which makes your way irrelevant, even if it is literally accurate.
Click to expand...
How do you know how “most” Muslims read the Koran?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Why is your reading of the Koran more relevant than the interpretation of the majority of Muslims themselves? I don’t care what “the book” says. What matters is how mainstream Muslims interpret it. If they choose to ignore certain parts of it, or live in outright contradiction with the literal meaning of their book, what is that to us? That is why your reading of the Koran, as accurate as it might be, is still irrelevant to deciding how to relate to Muslims.
Click to expand...
And why should we accept your assumption that “mainstream” Muslims read the Quran like you do? How do you know that they “mainstream” is ideologically similar to western values?
 
There is no reason why immigration from highly radicalized countries should not be limited.
It is a nation’s right, and responsibility to control who is able to enter into its borders, Propensity to being radicalized is one of the factors that needs to go into making the kinds of decision about who to accept and who to deny entry.

After a rise in gay bashing on the liberal streets of Amsterdam, Holland sent out flyers to Morocco saying that those who cannot accept homosexuals ought not to apply for entry.

A flyer is one thing. It is time for immigration officials to start asking a few questions, and carry out investigations too If that means that most Muslims will be denied entry, well that is on most Muslims and not on the policy that screens people for these kinds of behaviors.
 
Obama’s strawmen requires Trump to be targeting all Muslims,
The term Radical Islam segments the problem into something actionable,
That is why he avoids using the term.
 
musivc said:
To suggest that he is more sympathetic to Islam than to our safety. That good enough for ya? You may disagree with that, but that is my opinion and that will be your opinion.
Click to expand...
Worse, by aligning himself to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, he has aligned himself to the radical Islamists.
If Obama limited himself to sympathy to Islam in general, then he would be quite willing to align himself with Republicans and patriots who can identify Islamists as the enemy.

But for Obama, Islamists are not the enemy. They are the ones that Obama supports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top