Radical. Islamic. Terrorism.

41

June 16, 2016 by gregrabidoux2013

orlando vigil

Saying it won’t undo the evil but it may help us prevent another Orlando type massacre.

 

Three words. One phrase. Continued executive denial.

President Obama steadfastly refuses to, as he puts it “label” certain acts of terrorism because “why should we go out of our way to inflame all followers of Islam?” and at a National Security meeting recently stated flatly “that the future of the world should not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed.

Now imagine this same president standing at a podium at a world gathering and invoking Christianity this same way and passionately declaring that “the future should not and will not belong to those who slander, sacrifice, torture or behead those who believe in the scriptures in the Holy Bible, those who follow the words of the disciples of Christ.”

Good for you. Because try as I may I simply cannot imagine such a scene.

Paris Turns Blue, White and Red For Victims Of Friday's Terrorist Attacks

The French have no trouble calling it what it truly is.

 

But now onto undoubtedly the larger point.

Does it matter?

Mr. Obama has asked out loud the same question. He recently challenged a White House press corps to tell him “Why would labeling matter? How would it change anything?” He then went on to not so subtly imply that the GOP presumptive nominee Mr. Trump is really the problem. That Trump’s rhetoric helps the job of terrorists and assists them recruit and execute their plans of terror.

isis trump

So, this guy’s words are powerful but the presidents words are merely words?

 

So, let me see if I understand this presidential logic.

Labeling clear acts of terrorism that align ideologically with an extreme form of Islamic religion and fanaticism as “Radical Islamic Terrorism” will make no difference. They are merely words after all.

Yet, the words that apparently cascade out of candidate Trump’s mouth are so powerful, profoundly divisive and inflammatory that otherwise peaceful Islam followers are driven to do extreme acts of violence and terrorism against all such infidels, non-believers and tellers of falsehoods?

So far not so good. I don’t understand this logic. Let me take a different approach.

About a year ago I spoke with a staffer at the Obama White House. Over Greek food at Zorba’s in DC the conversation turned from its original subject (domestic policy on energy) to terrorism. I asked why the agonizing over phraseology? What was the fear in refusing to, in my view, call it like it was-Radical. Islamic. Terrorism.

There was no fear he argued. But a very rational and reasoned approach to not wanting to anger, upset or inflame millions of Islam followers by throwing them all under the bus with such a phrase. The whole issue he suggested was a “Fox thing” to stir up partisanship and increase ratings. No more. No less.

Donald trump megyn kelly

We’re good but not that good. This one is all Mr. Obama’s doing.

 

I didn’t get that reasoning then nor now. And Fox seems adept at stirring up partisanship and fueling high ratings with no help one way or the other from President Obama.

Look, I get that by “labeling” certain acts of terrorism as radical Islamist terrorism it won’t magically make things all better. I don’t believe this any more than I believe that by banning all Muslims from entering the US our homeland will immediately go from orange to green from danger to tranquility.

But.

If I were a peace-loving, non-terrorist supporting follower of Islam I would have no issue with such terror acts being labeled as radical or extreme.In fact, I would applaud such a clear separation so as to not get broad-brushed with extremists and killers in my religion. I feel the same when I see or hear the phrase “Christian Extremists.” Sorry, but I have no plans to blow up places that do things that are legal but I may disagree with in the name of my faith. Don’t toss me in the same egg basket as those radical murderers please.

confederate flag dylan roof

We’re sure not all the same why should we consider them to be all the same?

 

I mean, seriously, what is the alternative that such acts of unspeakable horror and terror are NOT radical or are NOT extreme or are NOT part of a minority-driven Islam theology?

That would mean that several billion people across this planet Earth who practice the Muslim are by definition all terrorists with an ideology and faith that makes it mandatory to slaughter all infidels and to engage in horrific acts of murder as part of their basic creed.

Is this the alternative we want to assume?

Donald Trump’s firebrand highly divisive and polarizing rhetoric may not be what is needed to counter the hatred, bigotry and violent tenets advocated by yes, radical Islamic terrorists but by continuing to put the focus on him after such terrorism as occurred in Orlando our president is mistakenly not putting the focus on where it needs to be. Where the problem stems from and where the solution must be targeted.

Radical. Islamic. Terrorism.

paris terror 5

This terrorist took pride in being labeled as such.

 

To engage in further refusal is to simply and dangerously deny reality.

To paraphrase the “X Files,” the truth, as ugly and scary as it may be, is out there.

And the sooner we let the rest of the world know that we aren’t afraid to recognize and label the problem for what it truly is the sooner we can put the full force of our political, social, cultural and moral powers where they need to be-Putting the Radical Islamic Terrorists out of business.

paris terror 3

bengal-tiger-why-matter_73410431.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “Radical. Islamic. Terrorism.

  1. Jen b says:

    Obama’s refusal to label the terror as radical Islamic terrorism is frustrating and plain stupid! He seems to care more about what Arabs and Muslims outside the US care about and think than Americans. And he wonders why no one believes he’s a Christian. he certainly acts like a Muslim. Great post and thanks for saying what needs to be said.

  2. William G says:

    Omar Mateen was a closet queen who loathed himself but because of his Islamic crazy beliefs had to kill all those innocents because his religion hates gays. he was radical, extremist, Islam and gay. But if he walks in with a handgun and no assault rifle we aren’t talking about this murdering piece of rubbish

    • Dave Brannan says:

      First of all, it is extremely unlikely that we would not be talking about Mateen if he had a hand gun instead of a rifle. Hand guns also are semi-automatic and can do a lot of damage very quickly. It takes a matter of second to change a magazine and continue shooting.

      Secondly, that is a whole different topic altogether. Gun control is an issue that tends to come anytime there is violence. What this article focuses on is the bigger picture around some of this recent violence. People have been killing each other long before guns were invented and people will continue to find ways to kill each other regardless of whether or not you can buy a rifle in the United States. This debate is around how to address and stop the violence coming from THIS radical segment of the population.

  3. Tyler H says:

    Great post! Obama is so intimidated by Muslims that he could care less about Christian Americans. Soon he’ll have time to go to his Mosque.

  4. Duke Briscoe says:

    How about calling them “radical terrorists perverting Islam”? That would not serve political interests that insist on drumming up anger and fear to benefit authoritarian leaders. I think just calling them more specifically ISIL or ISIS or Daesh or Al Qaeda or Taliban or Wahabbis is all we really need to do, maybe throwing in “radical terrorists perverting Islam” occasionally.

    The whole problem is to not pick a fight with a bunch of people when only one in a thousand (or less) is the problem. Also not to legitimize the role of the one troublemaker as a powerful representative for the others to follow.

  5. Brandy D says:

    No I can’t imagine Obama defending Christianity with the same righteousness as he always does Islam. And yes it does matter because every time he does this he insults Christian Americans and denies the terror that radical Islamic terrorist scum do. I am sure when he leaves office he can retire to Syria and they’ll welcome him with open arms.

    • Vicky L says:

      Most estimates say there are about 200 million real hard core Jihadists currently and about 2 million very active radical Islamic terrorists engaged as we speak in actions to commit terror against western civilization (i.e., Christians). So, sorry Duke B., but that ain’t one “troublemaker.”I agree, call it as it is if someone is NOT a radical Islamic terrorist then WHY should they get all bent our of shape??

      • Duke Briscoe says:

        Given that there are only about 100 thousand ISIS fighters, and their numbers and territory is being gradually reduced, I don’t know why we aren’t hearing much about the 19 times as many other “very active radical Islamic terrorists” that you claim. How many westerners a year are your 2 million terrorists killing? Maybe a 1000? If so, then only one out of two thousand of those “very active terrorists” actually kills a westerner in a year. It is an important problem, but we are dealing with it.

    • James Halios says:

      When Obama defended the barbarism of the radical Islamists by citing the crusades my jaw dropped. We are talking events that took place over a 1000 years ago, we as a religion and a society have evolved since them. We also believed the world was flat back then and the earth was the center of the universe.

  6. James Halios says:

    Let me preface this by saying I voted for our current president on both occasions. President Obama is so concerned with political correctness that he can’t see the forest for the trees. What does he think is going to happen if we use the term “radical Islam” the peaceful Muslims won’t speak out against acts of terror committed in the name of their religion? Oh wait, they don’t do that now. Do I believe all Muslims are evil and hate us? Of course not. But I do believe that the silence from the Islamic community regarding these acts is deafening. With the president refusing to label these terrorists as what they are (radical Islamists) only propagates this denial.

  7. A. Hughes says:

    *sigh* Mentally preparing myself to be the ‘that’ person in the virtual room…

    I semi-agree with B-man’s choice here.

    So right now, muslims in the U.S. are singled out. They are constantly associated with their radical counterparts. Muslim families who live in the U.S. are gawked at and sometimes turned away from parts of communities. Muslim families and children (especially girls with hijabs) are feared because of stigmas associated with their religion.

    Oddly, I feel like Obama didn’t label the Orlando attack for thoughts of muslims who are not radical.

    Just the other day I read of a news story of guy verbally attacking two women in hijabs who were buying ice cream.

    Another story involved an expose on muslim children – the little american muslims who were interviewed spoke of challenges in disassociating from muslim extremism. They just wanted to break the islamophobia and lead average lives.

    So many attacks including San Bernardino and Paris have been labeled. Why not label Orlando and get it over with, right?

    Well, it kind of seems like fuel to a fire, another notch on the muslim-terrorist-attack belt.

    I’m not 100% sure if I’m making sense but whole races and cultures being marked has never ended well. Jews, african-americans, irish descendants, and many more have faced stereotypes. Muslims are the stigmatized group of the 2000’s so far.

    I think Obama is trying to curb violence and hate. At least, that’s why I would avoid using the words terrorist or extremist unless absolutely necessary. People who can’t differentiate a muslim from a radical tend to group the race in all the same group. That’s when trouble happens and generally the trouble is lead by fear.

    • Alex Tabish says:

      I agree that we are being too focused on Obama’s language and not focusing enough on the fact that he dropped 23,144 (!!!!!) bombs on Muslim-majority countries in 2015. Much of being a president is listening to your allies in times of war and they are clearly suggesting that he doesn’t use divisive language by making this fight broader. I’m Republican, but gimmie a president like Obama over a blithering buffoon who feeds the media their garbage rhetoric (you know who).

    • Kershawnda J. says:

      Thank you for being that person. I think we have, to be honest here and state the fact that our current president is always careful in everything he says and in everything he does. He gets heat from everyone about everything and personally I think he is just trying to make it out of the office alive.

      History has taught us that everything is not always as it seems. For some reason, we as American think just because we can say it makes it right doesn’t. Maybe the president is trying to stop retaliation with his word would encourage on those of the Islamic faith not are extremist. Americans seem to go a little extreme themselves to protect their neighborhoods when they feel someone looks like they are a problem. Why encourage that behavior?

  8. Jessica Weaver says:

    How do “normal” Muslims refer to these extremists? I’m curious about that. Usually if you want to avoid alienating an entire group of people the trick would be to ask them how you can avoid alienating them, not just deciding for yourself.

    As you say, if it were you, you’d be happy to move yourself as far away from the extremists as possible. Christians do this–mainstream Christians refer to outlying sects all the time as cults or by names which downplay the relationship to Jesus Christ. They ostracize extreme elements from within, usually. Not always, but the vast moderate block in the middle, anyway.

    I’m not arguing that his heart is in the wrong place–as in, this IS a tricky situation, because we don’t really know what we can do or not do to keep normal Muslims from radicalizing. So, he and his advisers are trying, you know, to not make it worse. Trying to walk a middle road where normal people don’t feel as though they are being lumped in with terrorists.

    I agree, though, that this would be easier if a Muslim leader in this country could help everyone navigate this by saying what non-extreme Muslims are doing to distance themselves and then maybe we could all help them do it.

    • Jessica-part of the problem is what you touched upon-There is either not a consensus and visible/high profile Muslim leader who has the cache and credibility to speak on behalf of many OR there is one/several but hidden or concealed by design from non-Muslims. Either way, it foments distrust and perhaps (hopefully) a misperception of many non-Muslims in the USA that the leadership is in fact coming from the self-proclaimed Caliph-extremists who daily call for the destruction of Christians everywhere.

  9. keith welch says:

    Shakespeare said that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Labels aside, the fundamental properties of something remain the same. No matter what label you put on the acts of terrorism that have been occurring lately, they are just that- acts of terrorism. What Obama is trying to do is make horrible incidents sound not so bad. I don’t feel that it is a bad thing to put a radical label on these acts. Using a “radical terrorist” label acknowledges that the people committing these atrocities are not mainstream Muslims, they are a sub-sect. Christianity has these subsets as well. Look at Westboro Baptist Church. The majority of Christians do not protest at soldiers funerals or funerals of those lost to tragedy -such as the recent killings in Orlando. Orlando was a killing spree perpetrated by a person conforming to radical Islamism and who had ties with ISIS. How can that not be terrorism performed by a religious radical group. Obama is trying to shift the blame for these groups to Trump riling them up or FOX sensationalizing things. The plain truth is that he wants the spotlight off of his lack of response to these acts. Yes he shows up for memorials and press conferences but has yet to take a hard stand against homegrown terrorism. Admittedly it is not an easy thing to do without profiling a sect of our own citizens and massive manpower is needed, but Obama seems more concerned with the perception of the attacks than finding a solution. Do labels matter? Obama is right that they do. While a rose may smell the same if it is called sewage, people’s perception of it will be different (see the previous blog on ISIS and kittens)and that is what he is trying to affect. In my opinion call a spade a spade and lets get to work protecting ourselves from terrorists.

  10. Alesia Willis says:

    This is, in my opinion, the dangerous element of ALL religion. “Holy wars and crusades” I’ll just leave that phrase right there.
    For President Obama not to say the words “Radical Islam” is purely political and utterly ridiculous. Radical is the qualifying word. It’s an adjective. When placed in front of a noun such as Islam, it then differentiates this group from say Peaceful Islam. Words have meaning, it’s time our political leaders exercise their right to use them.
    Senator Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has no problem with using the phrase (now that the mood of the country has shifted in favor of the phrase). Good ole Hillary. We can always count on her to follow a trend.

  11. Vance G says:

    Alesia-you are correct-to not call “it” (radical Islamic Terrorism) for what it is-well, ridiculous and cowardly. I mean, do peaceful Islamists blow themselves up and kill 45 and wound 250 at an Istanbul Airport just cuz?? What is the objective anyways? Just to kill as many people as they can? Is that their whole efffing purpose in life? Sure seems like the face of global terrorism is in fact Islamic. Or am I missing something, maybe my bleeding heart liberal friends can “enlighten me?”

  12. T. Hogan says:

    I for one will call it what it is. If the definition or label of radical Islam terrorism fits, then certainly the act should be addressed as such. Religion itself is tricky and mentioning an entire religion because the acts of some radicals who leaders of the religion has denounced is perhaps harsh. People will be up in arms if the President uttered the words extreme or radical Christianity terrorism. Do we truly know what radical Islam is? Do we know enough about the religion? I’m not sure the answer to either.

    I believe there is something to the political correctness of the President and also other leaders who have been hesitant or even refused to address certain, high profile terroristic acts as radical Islamic. But, in today’s society hen a lot of the terroristic acts globally are committed by these terror groups that claim Islam then the President and other leaders shouldn’t hesitate to call the acts what they are. Do I believe changing the name of the acts or calling it something different will have some drastic effect on slowing the acts or even increasing the recruitment for the radicals is somewhat ridiculous. The mention of Trump’s comments increasing recruitment is even more ridiculous. Whether its radical Islamic terrorism or some other kind, I believe everyone first thought is to conclude that someone of the Islamic faith committed the acts.

    Seems like we put more pressure on the President and other global leaders addressing the acts as radical terrorism than them actually trying to prevent them or at least being more proactive. I guess in today’s society words matter a great deal.

  13. Alex Tabish says:

    I think first we need to differentiate what “political correctness” is: it is not creating “safe spaces” on campus and removing all microaggressions in society. What Obama is doing here is politically correct and the right move. I want my president to focus more on targeted attacks with our allies rather than focusing on language and semantics. Could Obama’s communication team do a better job with all of this? Of course. But we need to make sure that America does not present an image that we are against Muslim rights, practices, and ideologies. There cannot be a Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations”, Islam against the world, approach here. There are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. There is no reason to pick a fight with a population that big; there is NO winning.
    If we want to have a war, we need buy-in from our Muslim allies. These Muslim allies are clearly suggesting to President Obama not to widen the fight, but simply narrow it. Those countries have the real skin in the game, they are doing a significant majority of the fighting. So, I politely disagree with many on here who suggest Obama is being “PC” when in fact he’s doing what every good leader should: listen to their allies who are in the middle of the problem.
    We cannot defeat ISIS alone. As history has shown, bombing something will not destroy these ideologies. The religious components are too deep and ingrained within the society. These terrorists are cockroaches and will appear somewhere else. This fight needs to come from the inside; from powerful Muslim figures. Obama HAS stressed this – specifically in Feb. at a mosque, where he said it was the Muslim community’s “responsibility” to address this issue. He doesn’t shy away from the term or secretly want everyone to be in mosques as I’m seeing others on here (wildly) say.
    Every presidency is a reaction to a previous presidency. Obama would not be in office if it weren’t for some of the short-comings (in hindsight) of President Bush, Obama would not be in office. The language I’m seeing others on here suggest we use is catastrophic, ultimately feeding al-Baghdadi’s mission to suggest there is no place for Muslims in the West.

    • Blythe R says:

      What rubbish. So, does language matter or not? You seem to say yes but then are so concerned about apologizing for Obama that it becomes blurry. He has no problem saying “Christian extremists” why is that? I mean if it doesn’t matter then why not label radical Islamic terrorism for what it is? Here are some other words, maybe you know the meaning-coward, intimidated, spineless egg-head. Yep, that’s Obama in a few words.

      • Alex Tabish says:

        Based on your response, I can’t imagine you have too many rational discussions about our president, but I’ll try explaining my point a different way. First off, I’m not an Obama apologist. Didn’t vote for him, don’t know where you got that (or a lot of your content really) but would happily take him for another 4 years over our current two options.

        Second, I think you should read my first paragraph again. Could his communications team do a better job? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. It’s doesn’t change the fact he’s bombed 7 Muslim-majority countries (G. Bush conducted attacks on 4), or that he’s approved 18,274 air strikes in Afghanistan since 2009. It’s not a tactical strategy that advances our inevitable victory any faster.

        Third, those radical views of Al-Queda and ISIS come from the Wahhabi-Salafi ideology, a very conservative and questionable branch of “Islam.” There are thousands of diverse ideologies in Islam. To blanket them all together is ignorant.

        Fourth, and my main point I think you missed in the original post, is why use language that is divisive and combative? They are in the middle of a civil war. We have great allies with the Sunni Muslims. Part of being a leader is listening to your allies in regards to strategic operations, especially when they are doing a majority of the fighting! Not being part of semantic debates. Leave that stuff for Fox News, MSNBC, and discussions boards where we call our president childish names.

        I guess my question is what purpose does it serve? Does it change anything? Will you think he’s less of a coward because of the language he uses? Or are we all Obama Truthers and believe, as Trump suggested, he’s a secret ISIS operative?

  14. Kathy J says:

    While I agree that we must listen and work with our allies, I also believe that events should be labeled for what they are. It is indeed a fine line, but using “radical” or “extremist” to identify and separate those responsible for an incident is appropriate. When there is not delineation between those who are committing these horrific acts and those who are not it leads to ongoing ignorance. That ignorance fuels fear that leads to bigotry and retaliation against the innocent, not the radicals. Since 9/11 watch the reaction when a person who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent or a woman wearing a hijab steps onto a plane. By labeling those who are “radicals” or “extremists”, whether Islamic, Christian, or other, may help to educate and remind everyone that they are working outside of the norm for the group that they are identifying with.

  15. Chardonnay Watson says:

    I respect everyone’s point of view on this matter and try my hardest not to get debates about religion or politics because it never fails that someones feelings get hurt or people can not actually handle the truth. However, I voted for President Obama on both occasions and to be honest I am not against nor for what him not labeling the terrorist act as radical terrorism. Personally, I feel that none of us actually know if this act was terrorist or a hate crime (which to me both are pretty much the same). Nevertheless, everyone has the right to their own opinion and I just see President Obama as attempting to be politically correct with his statements instead of just spitting foolishness out of his mouth like Donald Trump.

    • Briana Holloway says:

      Chardonnay,
      I side with you on this. It hard to determine whether it was a terrorist or hate crime. How can one actually determine that. It had to determine especially with everything that is currently going on across the world. I applaud President Obama for being careful when it comes to how he uses his words.

  16. Ashley K. says:

    I agree that we need to have a distinction between regular Muslims and extremest Muslims, especially in the wake of an act of terror. However, I also realize that the topic is very sensitive and using the ‘radical Islam’ label can raise the tension even further. So I understand why Obama might be hesitant to use the label but I don’t think refusing to label will defuse tension. We need to recognize that radical Muslims do not speak for the millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. If more people understood this then using the Radical Islamic term might be better received and understood.

  17. Dustin H. says:

    Very well put Dr. R. I agree with you in principle, and I believe we should call a cow a cow and a dog a dog. I simply do not understand all the hoopla over calling something what it is, instead of everything but that in the name of not being offensive. Calling radical Islamists “radical Islamists” should not be a problem, just as I have no problem with calling radical Christians “radical Christians”. Just as AA says, the first step in addressing a problem is admitting there is a problem…verbally, in front of a crowd of people. We and the federal administration need to tackle this, and any and all terroristic threats to the U.S. head-on. Let’s stop with the tomfoolery, call it what it is, and combat this (along with all other) violent, radical Islamic terrorism.

  18. Victoria Johnson says:

    Very interesting if I must say so. I have mixed opinions on Obama’s refusal to label the Islamic Terrorists. Honestly, I don’t see the difference labeling will make. I am a Christian and I am not offended by his acts as President of this country. I think he in-bodies what American civilization is suppose to be based on which is equality and tolerance of all people. Whether you’re American or not, you should not be tortured or bullied for your religious beliefs. Believing and acting are two different things. If your religion tells you to murder people and you act on that then yes, you should be punished, scorn and held accountable for those actions. The bible tells us to go forth and spread the gospel. Some Christians go into other countries to do so. Should those persons be prosecuted for breaking the laws of the land they are in? As a Christian I don’t think so but fact is what happens will happen regardless of my views, and those events will not make me feel any different about my faith or religion.

  19. A. Luke-Morgan says:

    Reading through these few comments points to the division we have in just this small sample. Imagine the division in our nation. While many have claimed it is political correctness in avoiding those three little words, what exactly is political correctness? Why is it necessary? Let’s delve deeper into the whole p.c. concept. To whom should the President be politically correct? His constituents? America’s allies? America’s enemies? Are not all Americans the President’s constituents? When did P.C. become the mainstream?

    Our forefathers were far from politically correct. America stood for something and our leaders did not waiver. America constituents knew what the nation stood for. People were proud to be an American, and they knew what it meant to be an American. People came here to be part of the American Dream.

    Certainly times have changed, but those fundamental principles and ideologies (that are being destroyed daily) were steadfastly defended with honor. Those same fundamental principles SHOULD be the basis of what America is today. Sadly, the lack of effective leadership our nation is faced with coupled with a self-absorbed population leaves us in great jeopardy for the future.

    We have leaders who would rather play word games and turn attention to other areas, than take the bull by the horns and deal with it. I’m afraid that all of the political correctness has weakened our stance as a nation. People don’t come to America for a dream. Now America is expected to adapt to every other culture. America is a melthing pot that is steadily being scorched. Christians are expected to be tolerant of every other religion, yet no reciprocal expectations are evident. The future of seems to be more of a nightmare than a dream. As a Christian, I can find comfort in knowing how the story ultimately ends, regardless of what it is called.

  20. Marsha M says:

    A. Luke-Morgan makes a great point about religious tolerance in the United States. The days of harmony are over and it will only get worst. The funny thing to me is how many Americans are not aware of the direction the country is headed. 8 police officers killed within two weeks is my evidence that Americans, all Americans need to wake up now.

  21. I have no problem with identifying attackers as what they are, radical Islamic terrorists. But ideologically identifying them isn’t the problem. Everyone, whether they want to admit it or not, knows where their ideology falls. The problem, to me, lies in identifying them otherwise, like by geographical region inhabited or physical characteristics. The ISIS situation is especially difficult to diagnose because you can’t identify a radical Islamic terrorist from a buddhist by physically looking at them, as is the case with any other ideology. These people can hide in plain sight and are almost an unidentifiable enemy, which makes them more of a widespread, untraceable threat until they wreak havoc wherever on earth (which could literally be anywhere) they may be.

  22. jpmcvaney says:

    Honestly, I see both Obama’s need to not want to label as well as seeing the need to label. Maybe a bit of a devil’s advocate here but labeling does tend to gather some extra support or feeling of empowering to the group being labeled. It seems like he is under the impression that, much like crime shows point out, naming a group gives them the extra feeling of “famous” that they want. At the same time not labeling means that different groups can start to intermingle with no clear separation of who did this and who did that which causes chaos and people running around like chickens with their head cut off.

    One other potential reason I see President Obama going with not labeling is a long term hope, a hope that when these Islamic nations settle and threats like ISIS and other Islamic groups have been defeated or quelled that they will benefit us in the future because President Obama did not want to label them as this or that. But I know that may be a bit of a stretch, not a lot of people would see that as long term benefits.

  23. Sarah Matta says:

    I agree with some of the comments hoping that we can gain something from these threats later on down the line, but I do not think we should sugarcoat it. Call them what they are. I don’t know if he is attempting to make some sort of peace or if he thinks by labeling them “Radical” that he isn’t letting them win.

  24. Laura Deen says:

    We the people are not stupid. When Obama talks you can tell he is trying to choose his words so carefully as not to offend anyone. That is the problem with the world, especially our country, today. We are so afraid that we are going to offend someone. I believe this is one of many reasons there are so many Americans voting for Trump. Like him or not, Trump is not scared to speak his mind and tell it like it is. The Radical Islamic Terrorists or any terrorists for that matter is not concerned with being offended. They already have the hatred in their hearts and minds so let’s just call it like it is.

  25. Kenny. H says:

    Avoiding saying Radical Islamic Terrorism serves no purpose to me. It seems as if criticizing terrorist is an attack on the entire religion of Islam. This is stupid because most of the time radical Islamic terrorism affects those who practice Islam. I’m not the type of person to say that people are always being PC, but I do feel as if this is one of those cases.

  26. David P says:

    When I was on active duty I took a correspondence course (they gave you points for promotion) from the Marine Corps Institute called Terrorism Awareness. There was a very good definition of terrorism in there, “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate (instill) fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Notice the last part. Terrorism, by definition is, “generally political, religious, or ideological.” Also, this definition and course were written before 9/11.

    Naming them RITs passes on good information. You can identify their goals in the same way if you said Narco-terrorist in South America or white power terrorists. To me, it’s just silly, but a lot of what the president says and does is silly. Heck, it’s not even just Islamic terrorist, the word radical is being added in. So unless you are a radical, why are you offended?

  27. Mary says:

    Call. It. What. It. Is. At the risk of being extremely sarcastic, and to quote HRC, “what difference could it possibly make?”

  28. Hampton Raulerson says:

    When I’m asked about this topic I ask people if they have ever read the Harry Potter books. If they have they can immediately draw the similarities to this situation and “he who must not be named”. By not acknowledging who the enemy is and that we do in fact have an enemy, we now have a divided and fearful nation. But this does seem to play in to the powerful peoples’ hands as people seem to be more willing than ever to vote away their rights in the name of “security”. I must agree that I would not be offend in the slightest if i were apart of the Islamic faith and we called these people what they are. We all know Christianity has a dark and messy history and no one is afraid of talking about it. we all know there are radical Christians today, looking at you Westboro Baptist, and people definitely aren’t afraid of venting their anger towards them. I would assume that many Muslims feel the same way about people tarnishing the good name of their faith.

  29. E Griffin says:

    I definitely dislike how individuals of Islamic faith are grouped or categorized as terrorist. Its inaccurate and untrue to say the least. Its just shows a group of people being stereotyped based off of some individuals. In my eyes it just perpetuates separation and negativity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: