When these terror attacks occurred on US soil, Obama said neither "radical jihadists" nor "radical Islam". If he did eventually use the jihadists term, it must have been after a substantial amount of time had passed.Originally Posted by Henry
It's been US policy for well over a decade. All the way back to when W Bush said terrorists “hijacked a great religion".
Obama prefers the words "radical jihadists" and the use of highly-tactical airstrikes. It's how they've destroyed over 80% of isis (I mean the airstrikes, not the words).
Most terrorism experts believe that labeling terror attacks as radical Islamic terrorism is detrimental to efforts to combat terrorist groups like ISIS and their ideology, but clearly Fox News, Donald Trump, yourself, and Biffco think differently.
And are you really going to praise Obama's handling of ISIS, when he initially dismissed them as "the JV squad", and refused to put a stop to the movement in its infancy?
I've also heard this nonsense before that avoiding language such as "radical Islam" somehow helps fight the terrorists. Where are you getting "most experts" feel it's right to do this? From one guy quoted in that CNN article you linked?
I think it's a huge leap and oversimplification to believe that calling a terror attack "radical Islam" is somehow declaring war on all Muslims, and thus causing other Muslims around the world to refuse to help us fight terrorism. That's operating with the assumption that the average Muslim has the mentality of a 4-year-old. Peaceful Muslims are very aware that calling an Islam-related US terror attack "radical Islam" is not bashing their entire religion -- hence the "radical" part.
It's the same reason Christians don't get offended when an abortion clinic bomber is called a "Christian extremist". Because they know he is one, and they condemn the bombing as much as everyone else.
The problem with avoiding usage of the term "radical Islam" (and anything similar) is threefold. First, it's simply dishonest. The American people have a right to know the reason their home soil was attacked. Second, if Islamic extremists feel they are robbed of the "credit" for what they did, they will seek larger and larger attacks in order to get the attention they are seeking. Third, it's not really fooling anyone. In today's age of social media, we learn very quickly the real reason for these attacks. Even if our leader is dishonest and refuses to call it an attack by radical Islam, most Americans learn that's exactly what it was. So it just looks foolish and makes our leadership look dishonest.
I mean... Loretta Lynch actually edited out the word "Allah" from the Orlando shooter's 911 recording. That's how obsessed the Obama Administration was with preventing "Islamophobia", to the point where they doctored tapes in order to prevent people from thinking bad things about Islam.
That is exactly why Democrats did so poorly in the 2016 election. Trump seemed like the guy who would tell you honestly what's going on, whereas the Democrats were seen as the ones who would lie or filter the truth in order to prevent some group's feelings from being hurt. People basically had enough of the bullshit, and thus looked to a candidate who was able to present a facade of tell-it-like-it-is honesty.
Rather than continuing to make excuses for why Obama, Lynch, and others lied to America regarding these attacks, perhaps you and other Democrats should try engaging in some introspection, and understand that "we are lying to you for your own good" doesn't fly with most people.
Reply With Quote
