I think the president is very similar to the multi-culturalists in Europe that says we must accept all belief systems and that religion is an inherently good thing no matter what the religion actually says.

It's about rhetoric.

Obama is playing a rhetorical game. His point is that by calling ISIS "Islamic Extremism" you are giving them the legitimacy they need in order to continue to grow. When you equate them with Islam, you give them the tacit go ahead to further "represent" the religion. It is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize them with words.

Obama knows they are Islamic terrorists. He's attempting to minimize them, which could work if everyone in the world did the same. (By which I mean it will not work)

The point is this: the more we continue to blow them up, shoot missiles at them, drone strikes, etc., the easier is is going to be for them to recruit young people. How hard is it to get pissed at a country who blew up your neighbor's house or your mosque? Not hard. And it is easy to recruit from young people who grow up with that hatred passed down to them, and when they experience that terror first hand. If I grew up looking at the sky with fear because every little whir and hum could be a harbinger of death, I'd hate the shit out of whatever that hum represented.

It's not as easy as just backing out. But we have to let these people sort it out for themselves. We have to let these countries have their civil war. It won't happen, because of money and oil, but it should. If we militarily remove ISIS, the vacuum will be filled by another militant organization. And if history shows, it will be more militant than ISIS.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:11 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: It's about rhetoric.

Obama is playing a rhetorical game. His point is that by calling ISIS "Islamic Extremism" you are giving them the legitimacy they need in order to continue to grow. When you equate them with Islam, you give them the tacit go ahead to further "represent" the religion. It is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize them with words.

If that's what his honest intention is (though I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is his intention), then fine, I can at least understand where he's coming from. I'm still of the mind that calling a spade a spade is far better in terms of clarity. And I'm not sure exactly how we're giving tacit approval by calling them Islamic; even the people who pull the "they just have the wrong interpretation of Islam" card are at least acknowledging the direct link between their actions and their explicitly stated beliefs and reasons.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:15 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: If that's what his honest intention is (thought I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is his intention), then fine, I can at least understand where he's coming from. I'm still of the mind that calling a spade a spade is far better in terms of clarity. And I'm not sure exactly how we're giving tacit approval by calling them Islamic; even the people who pull the "they just have the wrong interpretation of Islam" card are at least acknowledging the direct link between their actions and their explicitly stated beliefs and reasons.

To be completely honest (and I should have stated this earlier), it's the only reasonable explanation I have for this behavior, and it makes sense to me. I do not have anything from the administration stating this outright. I did think of one more, though, and that is that if he is about to launch a military effort against ISIS, he might want to establish rhetorical precedence for distancing himself from "fighting Islam" in any sense. Fighting against "radical Islam" is really close to a religious war.

I think his position makes calling a spade a spade more tricky than if you or I did it. He has to weigh the conservative media's response to everything he does. If he had called this thing radical Islam to begin with, the conservative media would have been right on the other side of things, saying he is legitimizing ISIS as representative of Islam, etc. Lesser of two evils, maybe.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 2:15 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: If that's what his honest intention is (thought I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is his intention), then fine, I can at least understand where he's coming from. I'm still of the mind that calling a spade a spade is far better in terms of clarity. And I'm not sure exactly how we're giving tacit approval by calling them Islamic; even the people who pull the "they just have the wrong interpretation of Islam" card are at least acknowledging the direct link between their actions and their explicitly stated beliefs and reasons.

To be completely honest (and I should have stated this earlier), it's the only reasonable explanation I have for this behavior, and it makes sense to me. I do not have anything from the administration stating this outright. I did think of one more, though, and that is that if he is about to launch a military effort against ISIS, he might want to establish rhetorical precedence for distancing himself from "fighting Islam" in any sense. Fighting against "radical Islam" is really close to a religious war.

I think his position makes calling a spade a spade more tricky than if you or I did it. He has to weigh the conservative media's response to everything he does. If he had called this thing radical Islam to begin with, the conservative media would have been right on the other side of things, saying he is legitimizing ISIS as representative of Islam, etc. Lesser of two evils, maybe.

"Trying to remain as politically correct as possible and not offend muslims" is a far more plausible motive to me than a concerted attempt at discrediting ISIS through refusing to acknowledge their explicit motives. "Trying to not ruffle feathers" is something that politicians do all the time, and some people call that being sensitive and some call it cowardice.

Just like the nutty conservatives are attaching an agenda to his non-mention of Islam (he's being an apologist for them! he doesn't care about Christians! He's loyal to muslims first!), I equally think we shouldn't attach any tactical prowess or hidden strategy to his statements. It's far more likely and pragmatic that he's simply trying to be politically correct, just at the expense of being clear and directly addressing the underlying philosophy of ISIS in my opinion.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: To be completely honest (and I should have stated this earlier), it's the only reasonable explanation I have for this behavior, and it makes sense to me. I do not have anything from the administration stating this outright. I did think of one more, though, and that is that if he is about to launch a military effort against ISIS, he might want to establish rhetorical precedence for distancing himself from "fighting Islam" in any sense. Fighting against "radical Islam" is really close to a religious war.

I think his position makes calling a spade a spade more tricky than if you or I did it. He has to weigh the conservative media's response to everything he does. If he had called this thing radical Islam to begin with, the conservative media would have been right on the other side of things, saying he is legitimizing ISIS as representative of Islam, etc. Lesser of two evils, maybe.

"Trying to remain as politically correct as possible and not offend muslims" is a far more plausible motive to me than a concerted attempt at discrediting ISIS through refusing to acknowledge their explicit motives. "Trying to not ruffle feathers" is something that politicians do all the time, and some people call that being sensitive and some call it cowardice.

Just like the nutty conservatives are attaching an agenda to his non-mention of Islam (he's being an apologist for them! he doesn't care about Christians! He's loyal to muslims first!), I equally think we shouldn't attach any tactical prowess or hidden strategy to his statements. It's far more likely and pragmatic that he's simply trying to be politically correct, just at the expense of being clear and directly addressing the underlying philosophy of ISIS in my opinion.

I changed my own mind as I was thinking through this...

But I do think it's a little naive to say there is probably not any tactical prowess behind his statements.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 2:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: "Trying to remain as politically correct as possible and not offend muslims" is a far more plausible motive to me than a concerted attempt at discrediting ISIS through refusing to acknowledge their explicit motives. "Trying to not ruffle feathers" is something that politicians do all the time, and some people call that being sensitive and some call it cowardice.

Just like the nutty conservatives are attaching an agenda to his non-mention of Islam (he's being an apologist for them! he doesn't care about Christians! He's loyal to muslims first!), I equally think we shouldn't attach any tactical prowess or hidden strategy to his statements. It's far more likely and pragmatic that he's simply trying to be politically correct, just at the expense of being clear and directly addressing the underlying philosophy of ISIS in my opinion.

I changed my own mind as I was thinking through this...

But I do think it's a little naive to say there is probably not any tactical prowess behind his statements.

I meant more that it's a jump to call it 'a direct tactic to illegitimize ISIS' as you suggested in your first post. I think that's a stretch because plenty of other leaders of both European and Arab countries readily acknowledge the fact that ISIS is Islamic, they just call them a "wrong interpretation".

(February 19, 2015 at 2:39 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I changed my own mind as I was thinking through this...

But I do think it's a little naive to say there is probably not any tactical prowess behind his statements.

I meant more that it's a jump to call it 'a direct tactic to illegitimize ISIS' as you suggested in your first post. I think that's a stretch because plenty of other leaders of both European and Arab countries readily acknowledge the fact that ISIS is Islamic, they just call them a "wrong interpretation".

Gotcha. That makes sense. I agree, then.

I agree, on reflection, he's most likely being pragmatic. I think this is a carefully concocted strategic move rather than a cowardly dodge.

I hope so anyway.

There's no way he's really religious anyhow.

(February 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm)robvalue Wrote: I agree, on reflection, he's most likely being pragmatic. I think this is a carefully concocted strategic move rather than a cowardly dodge.

I hope so anyway.

There's no way he's really religious anyhow.

*Bold added

I don't know why people seem to think this. He attended church for 20 years, going back to his early twenties when he was only vaguely involved in politics. He says he's religious, leads prayers, makes many references to his own Christianity. At best I think you could say that you can't know because he's a politician and being pragmatic. I think it's a real stretch to say that there is 'no way' Obama is religious. This just seems to be wishful thinking on the part of Atheists who support Obama.