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.
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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
