Posted on 06/16/2016 8:31:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
resident Obama took to the microphones on Tuesday to rant about the great evil facing Western civilization: Donald Trump's insistence that Obama use the phrase "radical Islam" in describing a radical Muslim's killing of 49 Americans at a gay club in Orlando, Florida. Obama's original comment on the attack consisted of some platitudes about gun control and some happy talk about "various extremist information that was disseminated over the internet." You know, like in those rogue "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" chat rooms.
After Trump slapped Obama for failing to use the phrase "radical Islam," Obama, clearly disturbed, lashed out: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them 'radical Islamists.' What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is: none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction." He added: "There is no magic to the phrase 'radical Islam.' It's a political talking point; it's not a strategy."
If it's a political distraction, why not just do it?
If it's a talking point that bothers millions of Americans, why not just use it?
If words mean nothing, why not just say them?
Because Obama knows that the words "radical Islam" mean something. And he doesn't like what they mean.
The words "radical Islam" don't mean -- contrary to his straw man -- that all Muslims are terrorists, or that Muslims will run to terrorism out of fear of the very term "radical Islam." As Andrew McCarthy rightly points out on National Review: "our enemies despise us and do not judge themselves by how we talk about them. At best, they are indifferent to our language; otherwise, they are so hostile that they mock our 'progressive' obsession over it."
And the words "radical Islam" are not a substitute for strategy, obviously. Hillary Clinton said "radical Islamism" this week, and then said that she'd essentially maintain Obama's Middle East strategy that led to the rise of ISIS and its regional growth and international spread.
What the words "radical Islam" do say is that religious ideology matters -- that certain world problems can't be solved by appeal to transnational redistributionism or deliberate attempts to curb American power in favor of great equality among civilizations. Obama thinks that if he ignores the religious ideology of our enemies, they'll come around so long as we pull back and then offer them material goods. That's why his very own State Department suggested that ISIS be given jobs.
But they won't. That's what the phrase "radical Islam" recognizes: The only way to bring people back from the brink is a religious transformation. And that's a pretty serious problem, since people hold their religious beliefs far more closely than any other belief system. It means that it's not enough for a few fringe Muslims to condemn terrorism. It means true reformation, of the sort proposed by Egyptian leader General Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, not wishful thinking about the current state of the Muslim world, which is replete with fundamentalism that provides impetus to radical Islamic movements.
And that's why Obama won't say the phrase. To say it would be to recognize a problem he wishes didn't exist, a problem that undercuts his entire worldview.
And so more Americans will die. The left will babble on endlessly about Islamophobia and gun control while ignoring the only worthwhile goal in a war on radical Islam: the destruction of radical Islam itself.
“Yes, it Matters to Say ‘Radical Islam’”
Does it matter to say “pigdog murder-muzzie?”
Pure Evil Islam
The elites are upset that a certain frontrunner is standing up to them.
“He added: “There is no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ “
Clinton also used this saying it’s not a magic word.
What hypocrisy this is from Obama, who has tried to change the name of ISIS to ISIL. "ISIL" includes in the name areas where the maniac group has not been established.
So-called radical Islam is the purest form of Islam.
The words “radical Islam” are an obfuscation of the real problem.
It’s Islam.
All muslims are obligated to seek the subjugation, conversion or death of all non-muslims.
It’s in their book.
All muslims are commanded to seek world domination of Islam and sharia law for all.
It’s in their book.
All muslims are told to lie to infidels to advance Islam.
It’s in their book.
All muslims are a danger to all non-muslims, the ones who most closely follow the example of their prophet and his instructions in their book are the most dangerous.
Islam has been at war with everyone else since 622 A.D. and must remain so until there are no more non-muslims.
It’s in their book.
Mad Mo made it so.
With the help of the devil.
Identifying those animals by what they indeed are, “Radical Islamist” may be upsetting to odumbo and his ilk, that’s too damn bad, to damn bad if it is not politically correct. They are ANIMALS no matter what they are called. Odumbo’s failed policies have only enhanced their rage and intent on killing Christians and Americans.
Islam.
That’s all that needs to be said.
The term ‘radical islam’ is reduntant.
Again, every FReeper needs to read up on Confucius’ Rectification of Names. Everything has attributes that are ESSENTIAL and COINCIDENTAL. Terrorism today is ESSENTIALLY Muslim. The method is COINCIDENTAL. Denying a things ESSENTIAL nature while elevating the trivial COINCIDENTAL nature of a thing is a progressive, Alinskyite technique that needs to be stomped on hard every time it is tried. First ridicule, then isolate, then destroy.
It’s funny because it’s true.
What matters is REFUSING to say it. In favor of “overseas contingency operation” or some other piece of obfuscation.
Until the radicals have that transformation, nothing changes. Unfortunately, it won't be an American President that will cause that change. And it won't be in our lifetimes. How many years, decades and centuries did it take for the Judeo and Judeo-Christian worldview to change from the law to more of a grace based religion?
“Pure Evil Islam”
Satan invented Mohammedism primarily as a scourge with which to punish Jews and Christians. Even the parts of the Koran that might not appear to be evil are either borrowed from Judeo-Christian theology or fruit of the poison tree.
Not saying radical Islam allows him to lump one now generic extremist with the people he thinks are the real extremists, and that would be us.
We knew that Nazi's were evil and precisely who "that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch" was when called that by Patton.
Our "Jap" enemies were all near-sighted, buck-toothed maniacal fools that flew suicide missions.
These are simple Alinsky techniques that a certain presumptive candidate understands - label them first and worst!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.