(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".
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson