You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Champ Excoriates Republican Obsession With The Term '€˜Radical Islam'
2016-06-15
[HUFFPOO] 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.
That he asks that question demonstrates the depth to which he doesn't understand the question...
Wik: "Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder."
Using the label would be honest, calling a spade a spade. It might change the way a certain percentage of the population looks at the WoT and at Moslems in general, Islamists in particular. It wouldn't make ISIS less committed to killing Americans, but it might help a certain type of snowflake not to come down with the vapors when a terrorist eats a Hellfire. It might emphasize to some other governments that whatever our differences with them, we have a mutual interest in wiping the scourge of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and similar groups from the face of the earth. If you're going to do something, you should say what it is, which will get you more support for a policy if it makes sense, booed and hissed if it's stupid. Probably when the idea first came up Eisenhower and Churchill were going to invade via France. After awhile it was Normandy. Then it came down to dividing the beaches. Precision in terminology supported the tactics and strategy worked out at all levels.
Posted by:Besoeker

#18  From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.' (page 261)

Posted by: Percy McCoy7690   2016-06-15 22:34  

#17  I do wish that Obean would expend as much effort stopping the Islamic jihadists as he does trying to stop Trump.
Posted by: JohnQC   2016-06-15 21:55  

#16  Radical in the phrase Radical Islam is a qualifier to Islam. It should be just plain Islam, but the mainstream public is not ready for that yet. So use Radical Islam for now until the public is attacked enough by terrorists ready.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2016-06-15 19:37  

#15  In addition to being a wife-beating, half-ghey, radical Islamist, ISIS supporter, he was also a registered Democrat (look it up). So he's Oblahblah's kinda of guy.
Posted by: regular joe   2016-06-15 12:50  

#14   Crusader, yes exactly. It is an operational handbook. I suggest anyone who wishes to understand the teachings and current actions must read the work. Written 100 years before the illiterate Mohamed was born on skins. The Arab had no written language so that was developed for this work. Oral history was primary way to pass along the words. Written 600 years as I recall it said after the Torah - Law of Moses.
Posted by: Dale   2016-06-15 12:00  

#13  *Islam* is the problem. The terrorists are not "radicals", instead they are "literals"--they are acting upon the commands they read in the Islamic texts.

"The radical Muslims want to kill you because you're an infidel. The moderate Muslims want the radical Muslims to kill you because you're an infidel."
Posted by: Crusader   2016-06-15 11:30  

#12  the president challenged his detractors to identify a single tangible benefit of adjusting his choice of words to describe the attack

Because it would get a bunch of ostriches to pull their collective heads out of the sand? But of course, that's what you are afraid of.
Posted by: gorb   2016-06-15 10:57  

#11  There are (2) sides to this "Obsession." We know which one Cmdr. Zero takes.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy   2016-06-15 10:11  

#10  For once I agree with Champ. The term Radical is unnecessary, ISIS and the radicals are following the word of their prophet.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2016-06-15 10:05  

#9  He and his ink have no problem using 'radical' in referring to those of the Tea Party. His enemy is American.
Posted by: Procopius2k    2016-06-15 09:51  

#8  O always comes out with the same thing after every terrorist attack. However individual attacks are perpetrated by suseptable people that are taken in by Islamic propaganda. Death by a thousand cuts. O's platitudes don't cut it any more. People do not feel safe. So what do they do about it? A record number are purchasing firearms. Attitudes are changing toward taking responsibility for their own safety. It's a race between survival and serfdom.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2016-06-15 09:34  

#7  C'mon Obean, you are familiar with Alinsky's Rules for Radicals; particulary Rule 12: * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) Even Alinsky said you had to identify your enemy. You are being very dishonest and disingenuous.
Posted by: JohnQC   2016-06-15 09:09  

#6  Obean talks a lot and says little. Been going on for almost 8 years; Lecturer-In-Chief.
Posted by: JohnQC   2016-06-15 08:39  

#5  There's pretty snakes, helpful snakes, families of snakes, jeweled snakes, snake belts, religious snakes, hatbands and rattles.

And there are BAD snakes.
Posted by: Skidmark   2016-06-15 07:34  

#4  I would just like the guy to shut up!. Today I just saw this; "Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Friday signed into law a bill that directs the state to seek federal permission to allow undocumented immigrants to purchase health coverage from the state's exchange. The law would allow undocumented immigrants to purchase coverage from the exchange, called Covered California, if such a waiver is granted. However, undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for subsidies to help pay for exchange plan premiums. California would become the first state to extend exchange coverage to undocumented immigrants if the federal government grants such permission (White, "Capitol Alert," Sacramento Bee, 6/10; Karlamangla, Los Angeles Times, 6/10)."
Posted by: Dale   2016-06-15 06:26  

#3  Rather like sorting fly spoor from pepper, but I'll respectfully accept your learned definition. Bound to be a good one or two in the lot, but I've generally preferred to avoid the family entirely if possible. Lazy man's approach I suppose, my bad.

Since the earliest, I've believed Brennan was pulling the strings to this dodgy, indolent puppet. The Champ is tardy to nearly every performance. This might indicate he's either a late sleeper, or he's making a last minute call for updates and guidance prior to his senseless bloviations. Painfully predictable and almost on cue, he nearly always defaults to racial injustice and discrimination or climate change as the common denominators of any political or social challenge.

You are dead right about Herr Brennan. Any likeness Brennan bears to Kahless the spiritual leader of the Klingon may not be coincidental. Brennan's latest reality altering spin appears to be the exoneration of the Magic Kingdom from anything 9/11 (missing 28 pages, etc).

BTW, my in-line rants are crimson on dark grey. Butternut was not available. Enuf of my blathering. Thx for your cmnts.
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-06-15 02:54  

#2  Besoeker - To be honest Radical Islam is not correct either and does a disservice to the Shia...the true descriptor is Radical ahl as Sunnah Islam (Sunni). This ISIS and al Qaeda crew is the radical ahl as Sunnah in its purest form. This is how many Muslims themselves refer to it...not magical it just is what it is.

The small, arrogant President imagines himself nuanced...far from it...he is poorly prepared and further gets his advice from a close friend of the Sunni Wahabbis...Mr. Brennan.
Posted by: Tennessee   2016-06-15 00:21  

#1  '...snowflake not to come down with the vapors when a terrorist eats a Hellfire..."
if THAT is the only side effect of a Hellfire-ectomy, then I am all for it.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2016-06-15 00:18  

00:00