The President's Comments on the Current Rhetorical Situation in the US:

[astonmartin708]

These statements seem to mirror the points I've been making for the past 24 hours regarding the state of what we're hearing right now. If anything, it's more important now than almost any other time that the US officials stay level headed, measured, and focused on what the actual goal is internationally. To make America safe from outside threats and to protect the liberty of every citizen domestically.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/polit...-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html

 

[lawpoke87]

Obama has misunderstood ISIS from the beginning and unfortunately hasn't learned from his mistakes. Dismissing them and allowing that group to seize land, assets and power was obviously a mistake. Now we are afraid to call out ISIS followers as radicals because doing so might further anger this terrorist group? Ignoring facts and current situation because it makes us uncomfortable? Refusing to listen to the justification used by those who murder us? This has been our strategy for the last several years and these attacks continue to increase. Maybe...just maybe...it's not working. Let's not be honest. Let's continue the denial. Hell....let's do everything we can even calling the murderer a liar when he tells us his motive to fit our political agenda. Meanwhile....people are being murdered in the name of ISIS.

I'm not advocating war. I'm not advocating any type of extreme action. I'm simply advocating an honest conversation of the radical Islamic movement which is at the core of these attacks. Sticking our heads in the sand will not work.

 

[astonmartin708]

Did you even listen to his remarks? Lol

 

[lawpoke87]

Read CNN's recap. At work so I can't listen. Guess I should have known not to trust CNN?

 

[astonmartin708]

Read CNN's recap. At work so I can't listen. Guess I should have known not to trust CNN?

CNN sensationalizes it quite a bit. His tone during his remarks is quite more restrained (still a bit sardonic though) than the CNN article makes it out to be.

 

[lawpoke87]

Astro,

Why do you go wayyyy out of your way to defend a religion which has dispicable record with women rights, gay rights, and any other group which doesn't follow Islam?

Just curious. I'm a supporter of women and gay rights. Hell...I'm a supporter of civil liberties in general as long as the rights of others aren't infringed. As such....I find Islamic law intolerant at best and barbaric at worst.

Im not a particular fan of many aspect of Christianity either btw.

 

[WATU2]

These statements seem to mirror the points I've been making for the past 24 hours regarding the state of what we're hearing right now. If anything, it's more important now than almost any other time that the US officials stay level headed, measured, and focused on what the actual goal is internationally. To make America safe from outside threats and to protect the liberty of every citizen domestically.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/polit...-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html

+1

 

[WATU2]

Obama has misunderstood ISIS from the beginning and unfortunately hasn't learned from his mistakes. Dismissing them and allowing that group to seize land, assets and power was obviously a mistake. Now we are afraid to call out ISIS followers as radicals because doing so might further anger this terrorist group? Ignoring facts and current situation because it makes us uncomfortable? Refusing to listen to the justification used by those who murder us? This has been our strategy for the last several years and these attacks continue to increase. Maybe...just maybe...it's not working. Let's not be honest. Let's continue the denial. Hell....let's do everything we can even calling the murderer a liar when he tells us his motive to fit our political agenda. Meanwhile....people are being murdered in the name of ISIS.

I'm not advocating war. I'm not advocating any type of extreme action. I'm simply advocating an honest conversation of the radical Islamic movement which is at the core of these attacks. Sticking our heads in the sand will not work.

Yes understanding the nature of the problem is key. What evidence can you present that the President misunderstands the problem other than your dissatisfaction with the situation and anger that he won't use inflammatory language? How is your understanding of the problem different?

Is your view that Trump has command of the Middle East issues (which go far beyond ISIS) and has a better set of solutions? If so what are they? I haven't seen any.

 

[TUMe]

The old you don't agree with the president must be for Trump theory. Sad WATU.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If Romney had beat Obama, I don't think their would have been any less number of incidents. I think the people perpetrating these incidents don't give a damn who is president, and are not motivated by that. I seriously doubt any Republican or Democrat being in office in place of Obama would have taken measures which would have stopped the people from doing these actions. If Trump were in office though, he would have inspired more incidents in reaction to his inflammatory actions and words. As far as other candidates go, I don't think any of them on both sides would have drastically altered the landscape of terrorism. Trump is the worst person to deal with radical islam.

 

[WATU2]

Astro,

Why do you go wayyyy out of your way to defend a religion which has dispicable record with women rights, gay rights, and any other group which doesn't follow Islam?

Just curious. I'm a supporter of women and gay rights. Hell...I'm a supporter of civil liberties in general as long as the rights of others aren't infringed. As such....I find Islamic law intolerant at best and barbaric at worst.

Im not a particular fan of many aspect of Christianity either btw.

If you go back in US history less than a century, women were expected to have a subservient role (some still are), the LBGT community was outlawed and reviled (and in lots of places still is), civil liberties were far more restricted, Jim Crow and segregation were respected and enforced (some remnants remain), yet our society has managed to evolve a bit beyond that. Shall we drop the concept of religious freedom in order to condemn a billion people who practice Islam in a multitude of ways as if they are all terrorists and despicable people? Would that encourage or discourage movement in the direction you approve of? Should we be a welcoming example or a hostile, heartless enemy constantly demeaning them?

Two buddies of mine just returned from 12 days in Iran. They had a ball and said people they met were very friendly and positive toward Americans. They also sent photos of themselves mugging in front billboards claiming that the US is The Great Satan. Yet most Americans refuse to believe that a modern, non-militant middle class exists in Iran. I"ve lived in Malaysia, Indonesia (world's largest Muslim country), and Singapore all of which have Muslim populations and seen happy marriages, loving families, and peaceful lives as a rule, not an exception. Friends of mine host grad students from all over the middle east, many of them women. They are loyal to Islam, would deeply resent it being called despicable, but also working to support women's education or other forms of modernization.

Painting a billion people with hatred and disgust strikes me as appalling, and unfortunately it seems to be gaining traction as this political season moves on. Condemning the majority for the acts of a minority does not work in our favor.

 

[TUMe]

Trump is the worst candidate ever. But that doesn't excuse the failures of Obama during 7.5 years.

 

[WATU2]

The old you don't agree with the president must be for Trump theory. Sad WATU.

Didn't read my post or just want to avoid the question?

 

[astonmartin708]

Astro,

Why do you go wayyyy out of your way to defend a religion which has dispicable record with women rights, gay rights, and any other group which doesn't follow Islam?

Just curious. I'm a supporter of women and gay rights. Hell...I'm a supporter of civil liberties in general as long as the rights of others aren't infringed. As such....I find Islamic law intolerant at best and barbaric at worst.

Im not a particular fan of many aspect of Christianity either btw.

I haven't defended a specific religion. I am against all kinds of radical religious sects. That includes Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc... I think they're more detrimental to the development of society than they are good. However, just like I don't think we should declare war on all southern baptists, I don't think we should declare war on a certain sect of Islam either. I don't think it's a war where there will be any 'winners'. You can't kill an idea. It's like throwing water on a campfire. You might squelch the flames, but the embers burn a long time after.

I don't support the infringing of anyone's rights, and as loud as people on this board lobby for maintaining our current freedoms of speech and of press and the right to bear arms, everyone is quick to bury the freedom of religion. You can say all you want that you aren't against the religion as a whole, but as evidenced from the decade+ we were in Iraq... the common American has a hard time distinguishing between a peaceful Muslim and a Jihadist. That's why I heard plenty of Marines (and their families) talking about Towelheads, SandN***ers, etc...

And I certainly find it funny that the most intolerant people in the US are the most vocal proponents of conflict on a basis of these middle eastern tribes' intolerance.

(As an aside, yes I know marines were combatants and were shot at. But I won't limit the prejudices I've heard to just them. I heard them from many people from different walks of life, and I'm absolutely sure that another propaganda filled, 'stick a boot in your ass', war will be increasingly detrimental to our relations with the middle east outside of one country, Israel)

 

[TUMe]

Is your view that Trump has command of the Middle East issues (which go far beyond ISIS) and has a better set of solutions? If so what are they? I haven't seen any.

Didn't read my post or just want to avoid the question?

You asked your first question to Lawpoke. You know that neither he nor I can stand Trump.

The old you don't agree with the president must be for Trump theory. Sad WATU.

I will answer your strawman question. I think Trump is the least qualified candidate in my lifetime. That doesn't mean that everything Obama is doing or saying is right either. Even Hillary said yesterday "I'm not afraid to say 'radical Islam.' " Today Obama spoke against those words. Does that mean that Hillary is closer to Trump. Of course not.

 

[TUMe]

Astro, I too am against all radical branches of religions. But it wasn't radical Buddhists who attacked the World Trade Center. It wasn't a radical Hindu group who attacked Paris. The trouble in Belgium was not with radical Confucians. Omar was not Shinto. Since you like to mention Southern Baptists, the plane that was blown up recently was not returning to Egypt from Atlanta. The San Bernardino acts were not performed by Mormons from the South Pacific. The guys at the Boston Marathon were not Sikh. The two guys who rented a vehicle and drove it to Las Vegas to run over people walking were not Greek Orthodox. Some Native American groups may include snakes in their ceremonies, but they don't put "Snakes on Airplanes."

Saying Islamic Terrorists does not mean all Muslims are terrorist. In fact it says we are not against Muslims, only against those who are terrorists.

 

[lawpoke87]

Couple of thoughts. I certainly haven't read any of the rational people on this board condemn Muslims or even Islam. (Although I have said I strongly disagree with it's treatment of gays, women and other minorities). I do condemn the radical element of Islam which is represented by ISIS and other like groups. Why anyone would have an issue with strongly calling these people and beliefs out is beyond me. The distinction between this radical element and the typical American Muslim is obvious and such distinctions should be pointed out when talking about the threat radical Islam poses to our citizens.

Obama has a history of misunderstanding Isis and get threat it poses. From characterizing them as no threat during their formation to ignoring them as they grew in size and wealth. Then further watch as they acquired the wealth necessary to spread their radicals and violent doctrine across the world even though we had the military assets in place to stop them from acquiring those assets. Instead we chose to focus on regime change in Syria which further created a power vacuum which allowed Isis to capture the rich oil fields and refineries in the eastern part of that country. We are where we are today because of our inaction in curbing their wealth and ability to project their message worldwide.

Nothing Obama has said thus far regarding the indoctrination of Muslims into their radical doctrine has convinced me he understands the reality any better today than he did three years ago. He is correct in that this isn't a fight against Islam in general. However, he is wrong in that this is a fight against a radical branch of Islam which wants us as well as Muslims who don't believe as they do dead by any means possible. A branch that will not be passified or even effected by the non-use of words which reflect realty.

Pretending this isn't about religion is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. To these people this is all about religion.

 

[aTUfan]

The focus is on guns and muslims as victims.

Easier for bho to address than the intolerance of a religion.

If wee had no guns, this would not happnen.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Where did fanatu, xanadu go?

 

[URedskin54]

I haven't defended a specific religion. I am against all kinds of radical religious sects. That includes Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc... I think they're more detrimental to the development of society than they are good. However, just like I don't think we should declare war on all southern baptists, I don't think we should declare war on a certain sect of Islam either. I don't think it's a war where there will be any 'winners'. You can't kill an idea. It's like throwing water on a campfire. You might squelch the flames, but the embers burn a long time after.

I don't support the infringing of anyone's rights, and as loud as people on this board lobby for maintaining our current freedoms of speech and of press and the right to bear arms, everyone is quick to bury the freedom of religion. You can say all you want that you aren't against the religion as a whole, but as evidenced from the decade+ we were in Iraq... the common American has a hard time distinguishing between a peaceful Muslim and a Jihadist. That's why I heard plenty of Marines (and their families) talking about Towelheads, SandN***ers, etc...

And I certainly find it funny that the most intolerant people in the US are the most vocal proponents of conflict on a basis of these middle eastern tribes' intolerance.

(As an aside, yes I know marines were combatants and were shot at. But I won't limit the prejudices I've heard to just them. I heard them from many people from different walks of life, and I'm absolutely sure that another propaganda filled, 'stick a boot in your ass', war will be increasingly detrimental to our relations with the middle east outside of one country, Israel)

That sect has already declared war on us. Unfortunately they do get a say in it.

No one on here has advocated restricting freedom of religion. You're just misdirecting. And the names that you heard from the Marines probably has nothing to do with being shot at. It probably has to do with the gross despicable culture they interacted with.

 

[astonmartin708]

I was not asked why I disliked Islamic terrorists. I was asked why I defended their religion (which I didn't) I defended their right to be Muslim in our country without undue repercussions on those of the Muslim community who are faithful.

 

[URedskin54]

I was not asked why I disliked Islamic terrorists. I was asked why I defended their religion (which I didn't) I defended their right to be Muslim in our country without undue repercussions on those of the Muslim community who are faithful.

We're talking about verbal criticism of an ideology on this board, not punitive measures against Muslims for their faith. You're defending something that requires no defense.

 

[astonmartin708]

All I hear is War, War, War, War, War. And I refuse to get into another quagmire for 10-15 years. Let them kill themselves. Let Syria and Russia Fight them. Let the people of the surrounding countries fight them. We have zero business being in that region, and the only reason they are attacking the west is because we are already there.

The last time we went over there it cost us 1.7 trillion with benefits to our veterans that could amount to 6 trillion over the next four decades. That was when we gave them 'freedom' and we were fighting against a dictator. Now how much will it cost us in today's dollars when we're fighting a religion and a government (if you can call it that) without a real central leader.

 

[TUMe]

Let me summarize a problem. Obama is saying that others are playing politics. It is not as though he has not. He has not wanted to admit until recently that there was terrorism on his watch. The psychiatrist that killed troops was just on the job violence. The man who beheaded a fellow worker was on the job violence. Benghazi was not terrorism it was a riot over a video. Then they admitted that it was terrorism and he went to the UN and went back to the video.

He was slow to admit that this incident was terrorism and some people doubt Omar's last words were true. His wife admits he planned several, studied which one would be best. She tried to talk him out of it but she drove him there.

Now Obama who talked about ISIS being JV is forced to admit there is terrorism. He is in a bind and all he has left is to say he is not saying Islamic because most Muslims are good. I know that, I know a number of Muslims. Most are like the rest of us in wanting to work, live, get through life in a peaceful way.

When describing terrorists, Islamic is a modifier. It is a truthful modifier in many instances as we all have seen. During the Crusades Christian Terrorists would have been honest. Being truthful isn't wrong. During the 1960's there were Christian Terrorists in both Irelands over religion. In Serbia there was government sponsored ethnic cleansing. Milosevic went to prison where he died.

Because you don't deny what's happening doesn't mean you blame every Irishman, Christian, or Serb. Obama is also playing politics with the gun part of the story. If we had banned all guns in recent years there would still be guns on the street and he knows it. Strict gun laws didn't stop terrorism in Paris or Brussels. The San Bernardino couple also had bomb making stuff.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Obama is defending himself from not using that modifier because it does not change the actions he has taken, just the language in which he describes it. Bitching about using the modifier or not, does not change the actions and it is a political argument that accomplishes little. All the while he is using a political argument to try and get gun legislation through, that will do nothing to stop violence. I wish people would stop arguing over his lack of use of that modifier. I also wish he would stop using this and all other terrorists incidents as an excuse to bring up gun control.

 

[WATU2]

All the while he is using a political argument to try and get gun legislation through, that will do nothing to stop violence.

There is substantial evidence that gun control does reduce gun violence both from domestic sources and international examples. A point to be debated perhaps, but certainly not a given.

The Charlotte church massacre happened about a year ago. The shooter was a kid who wanted to start a race war.

 

[WATU2]

I haven't defended a specific religion. I am against all kinds of radical religious sects. That includes Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc...

Good point. Radical religious fundamentalism has been a source of violence and intolerance for millennia and is an equal opportunity employer that has infected every religion I can think of.

 

[WATU2]

BTW Kudos to Paul Ryan for speaking out as he did.

 

[TUMe]

There is substantial evidence that gun control does reduce gun violence both from domestic sources and international examples. A point to be debated perhaps, but certainly not a given.

The Charlotte church massacre happened about a year ago. The shooter was a kid who wanted to start a race war.

It does not diminish the importance of this terrible event at the church, but a hand gun was used. Most of the calls this time are for banning assault rifles.

 

[rabidTU]

As unpresidential as Trump seems to be, Obama was yesterday. Nuff said.

 

[WATU2]

Obama is defending himself from not using that modifier because it does not change the actions he has taken, just the language in which he describes it. .

Is the "modifier" the word "radical" or is it "Islamic"? Eliminating just 'radical' would even be worse as it would be an even clearer indictment of the entire religion.

 

[TUMe]

Is the "modifier" the word "radical" or is it "Islamic"? Eliminating just 'radical' would even be worse as it would be an even clearer indictment of the entire religion.

So if one said Christian terrorists that would mean all Christians are terrorists? Both radical and Islamic are modifiers. In fact radical terrorists is redundant, there are no moderate terrorists.

 

[URedskin54]

What to make of the Obama admin choosing to release the transcript of the terrorist's 911 call with all references to Islam and Isis removed?