world

Obama bans terms such as Islam, jihad from U.S. security strategy

76 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

76 Comments
Login to comment

The problems are not so much the words. The problems are the small-minded interpretions of the words by people with small minds.

The word "Islamic" points to a culture rather than simply a religion, and like it or not the terrorist image has acquired a vogue and a mystique in Islamic culture as much as the gangsta has in American black culture. But if you thought all or most blacks were "gangstas" you would be a small-minded fool of the same type who thinks all or most people of Islamic culture are terrorists.

The word "jihad" as many meanings including a personal struggle. But my understanding is that it was terrorist types who started using it to mostly refer to violent struggle including against innocent and defenseless civilians. They perverted the word first. And while I still decry the people who assist in that perversion, I don't know of a substitute word. But if they have one, its a good thing. No one should let terrorists control the debate, and many posters here are letting that happen, especially with these words.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Probably a correct decision, however, doesn't the president actually have more important things to do than juggle semantics? Instead of concentrating on being politically correct (or at least not being politically insensitive), how about tackling some more important issues?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure by this weekend, "Saturday Nite Live" will come up with a long list of not very flattering alternatives to use in their stead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama bans terms such as Islam, jihad from U.S. security strategy"

This means Obama is siding with the terrorists.

Doesn't it?

Joking aside, HeyLars is bang on the money - "The problems are not so much the words. The problems are the small-minded interpretions of the words by people with small minds."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a load of P.C crap. We are at war with radical Islam and their adherents. Islamic extremism is something that is not to be coddled with some P.C garbarge so as not to offend ones so called delicate sensibilities. It is to be shown for what it really is. A murderious perversion of a religious faith that does nothing but stain those adherents of that faith that do believe in peace and justice and renounce the use of violence.

I can't believe this, I really can't.

Does this administration actually have some grasp of reality as to how it really is in the real world instead of some fantasy utopian world that it seems to actually inhabit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HeyLars: "The problems are not so much the words. The problems are the small-minded interpretions of the words by people with small minds."

Boom. Bang on, my good man. Sadly, those small minded people often gather together for 'tea-parties' and what not and try to wax politick on the subject. In fact, a number of posters on here insist that all Muslims are potential terrorists. True, they are small minded, but it's still a sad state of affairs that people can come to think such things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is that the history and sacred doctrine of Islam are wrought with violence and to be a true believer of Islam is see violent acts against infidels as a sacred act. Mohommed was nothing but a cult-leader turned warlord. We Japanese thankfully have peaceful religions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did he get Al Qaida to ban the use of the term "Great Satan" too? If AQ are not Islamic extermists, what should we call them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Headlines from the future: Bin Ladin Boy Scout troop 1 has decided to contribute to America's bio diversity by introducing small pox into the environment. Meanwhile, the Hamas Book Reading and Reciting Society has decided to open a sematic boys and girls camp at the site of present day Tel Aviv.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boom. Bang on, my good man. Sadly, those small minded people often gather together for 'tea-parties' and what not and try to wax politick on the subject. In fact, a number of posters on here insist that all Muslims are potential terrorists. True, they are small minded, but it's still a sad state of affairs that people can come to think such things.

The problem is not tea-parties, which when it comes down to it, is mostly about the problem of big government and taxes anyway, but rather small minded individuals who believe that political correctness is more important then facing reality. Refusing to acknowledge a problem, or reference it in this case, does not in fact make that problem go away. And stubbornly refusing to face this fact says a great deal about the person currently elected to lead the free world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "I can't believe this, I really can't."

Hey relax, it's simply deleting a few words from official use.

It's not like it's a collassal balls up like, you know, invading the wrong country or anything....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PrideinJapanese: Please read some history books. Japanese religions were never very peaceful. You can refer to rival Buddhist sects warring against each other and burning down temples for starters. Happy reading!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

heyLars:"The word "jihad" as many meanings including a personal struggle."

Ka-boom!And bangingly bang-on, my fine fellow! It's just too funny that the teabaggerists, who clearly miss a certain ex-president who was the worst president ever, STILL get worked up about ONE of the Abrahamic religions but not the OTHER two.

It must be there small minds, which got shrunk that way from too much hate and bias, or something.Disgusting!

Well, anyways my friends, as usual Obama is absolutley correcto-mundo here: and everybody who is attempting to criticize him is wrong, and this latest pronouncement from him, which is as astounding and wonderful as ALL of his others, will also go onto my i-pod once I can download the audio of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The problems are not so much the words. The problems are the small-minded interpretions of the words by people with small minds."

To bad the Department of Homeland security seemed to have missed the P.C memo about calling people " fill in the blank" extremists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/homeland-security-report_n_186834.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ever notice how the most intolerent and self righteous are the first to call others "small minded"? It is so "small minded" of the tea "baggers" (more name calling from the paragons of diversity) to protest the govts massive spending given the unprecendented spending of the "chosen one". By the way, we all will be paying for his debt fuelled spending spree for decades. How can anyone support that fool?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, calm down sailwind for pete's sake.

Perhaps it's pandering to political correctness, but I think engaging the moderate muslim world as a means of tackling radical Islamism is better than making out you're at war with all muslims, as W did. There are quite a lot of the buggers you know....

If not, methinks you're dangerously close to meeting Heylars's criteria in your attempts to find any fault you can with President Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"By the way, we all will be paying for his debt fuelled spending spree for decades. How can anyone support that fool?"

Hey, in 2002 I was asking all the screaming for war with Iraq how they were going to pay for it all....

...now the US is skint, all of a sudden it's Obama's fault he's playing the hand he was dealt with?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

spleefmasterj, so you're against others engaging in name calling but you're quite happy to call Obama the 'chosen one'? Could contradictions like yours be why some call those on the right 'small minded'? oh, never mind.... :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

terms such as “Islamic extremism”

The Obama administration prefers instead to use the term "Democratic Party voting bloc".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder said: Probably a correct decision, however, doesn't the president actually have more important things to do than juggle semantics? Instead of concentrating on being politically correct (or at least not being politically insensitive), how about tackling some more important issues?

How much time do you think he took for this? Its not about being PC. Its about getting everyone on the same and correct page. People are misinterpreting the words, the very basis of everything that is communicated and thought about the issue of terrorism from the M.E. The president is looking to make sure that foundation of communication is solid. The way I see it, its vital and all encompassing. I would prefer everyone just smartened up and understood the words as they are, but hoping won't help. God knows I have tried to explain too. The president has just set the impetus to make new words, and really, it takes someone that high to do that. But here, I will try my hand at those new terms. How about instead of Islamic terrorism, we now call it Heretical UnIslamic Terrorism (HUIT) (pronounced Who it)? How about instead of Jihad, we call it Heretical UnIslamic Cult Movement (HUICM) (pronounced Who, I see 'um.). Those would nod to those of moderate Islam and keep us focused on the real enemy. But not being president or anywhere near it, I doubt they will stick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the same guy who said there will be no more 'War on Terror' discussed in the White House. The name is offensive, sez he. I think the fact that NYC no longer has its Twin Towers and light a few thousand people is offensive. I think people pretending something doesn't exist by calling it another name, is offensive. I think an American President giving the keys to the castle away, by stating what his nuke 'policy' is, is offensive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The title War on Terror was dumbass if you ask me. How can you wage a war on an invisible enemy that pops up every now and then with a cowardly attack on innocents? Heh, Bush's barvado changed more than a tad by the time he handed the keys to Obama mind you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its not about being PC. Its about getting everyone on the same and correct page. People are misinterpreting the words, the very basis of everything that is communicated and thought about the issue of terrorism from the M.E. The president is looking to make sure that foundation of communication is solid.

A textbook example of this definition is above.

Progressive Morals A feel-good moral system characterized by rejection of absolute values. Practiced by individuals and collectives of true moral authority who intuitively know what feels good at any given moment. Morality is relative by definition as it always depends on a person's ethnic, religious, or geographical background. Cutting off people's heads, for instance, is not immoral on the progressive moral scale because such scale does not exist. Differences between the head cutters and the head cuttees must be evened out through mutual acceptance and tolerance. The only exception is made for backward capitalist morals based on the false concept of private property, as practiced by conservative individuals of little or no moral authority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee sailwind, all I wanted was more accurately descriptive terminology to help out the slow people.

Maybe instead of random accusations you could put forth your own suggestions? Or do you think everyone is sorting the difference between Islamic culture and the Islamic religion just fine on their own? And do you think the word Jihad is fairly defined as blowing up women and children despite the wording predating such actions by over a thousand years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know where you copied that poignat load of physco-babble sail, but I'm unsure how to put it into context here.

If the muslim world (all 2 billion of 'em) were made to feel like Bush's so-called War on Terra was actually a war on Islam, then I support Obama's initiatives to reverse that small-minded thinking.

Were the non-radical muslims (you know, the huge proportion of them that are equally disguted by terrorism as you or I) be drawn into the fold and made to do more to shun the radicals I think progress could be made in the fight against terror.

Having the bigger stick has proven to be an abject failure, in advance, many times over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts,

You agree with this?

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

I hope that you do. It was from a speech given to Congress just two days after the Sept 11th attacks by a guy named George Bush. He never declared a 'war on Islam' and reached out from the very beginning to moderate Muslims. That perception that we were at war with all of Islam came from the radical Muslim extremists themselves in their on-going propaganda war to win the support of their host populations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, that dude who tried to blow up that plane with that explosive device on his lap not long ago is an Islamic extremist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith."

Who's "we"?

Is "we" the vast majority of Americans who don't know the first thing about Islam besides what they see on TV?

You'll need more than simple platitudes and empty words to get them on your side and undo the massive amount of damage inflicted by bush/cheney by invading 2 countries.

Even if the so-called WOT wasn't against Islam in the first place, depending on how the terrorist are spinning it to their followers, words from Americans don't have a show of changing their minds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leave it to Sushi to criticize a speech given by Bush, which, if given by Obama, he would praise to the heavens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leave it to Sushi to criticize a speech given by Bush, which, if given by Obama, he would praise to the heavens.

I would expect Obama to stand by his words, if he'd made the speech sailwind quoted. Bush clearly did not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush clearly did not ( stand by his words )."

Which ones?

Moderator: Back on topic please. Bush is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, that is a nice speech. But I am afraid it still fails to overcome the effect of repeating the words "Islamic terrorism" over and over again. Such a term implies that Islam and terrorism are necessarily co-joined. Unfortunately, semantics do weigh heavily on simple minds, even more than pretty speeches, and removing that effect is what this is all about. And I am afraid that, yes indeed, some of our own people have contributed to the perception that we are at war with Islam. Some of those types post here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sail,

That's simply the "but" just prior to the inevitable. A disclaimer if you will. Though I'll agree Bush's speech writer got the tone just right....

....and let's face it - by mid 2002, a frightening number of Americans believed Saddam Hussein to be behind the Sept 11th attacks and that a nuclear attack on NYC was pending.

I've been a longtime critic of moderate muslims not doing enough to help themselves by disowning those comitting acts of terror in the name of "god", and that's why I think having a tantrum with team Obama for attempting to moderate language to draw these people into the fold is a good thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jeez I get worse;

"and that's why I think having a tantrum with team Obama for attempting to moderate language to draw these people into the fold is not a good thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

National suicide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The declaration of war may be found in a Feb. 23, 1998 document from the "World Islamic Front!

"... in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...."

.....but for the Obama crowd, islam has nothing to do with that. Surreal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts

I somehow have real doubts that the guys and gals that are serving over there and actually fighting and dying and that includes French soldiers I might add really appreciate the 'nuance' that they are now not fighting Islamic extremists but "misunderstood cultural differences".......Great for morale and keeping the troops fighting spirit up eh Adverts? We are at war with radical Islam have been since this started on Sept 11th and no amount of sugar coating is going to change that fact. Call like it honestly is Adverts.

A little off topic but a very interesting point and comparison that Hey Lars just brought up.

But I am afraid it still fails to overcome the effect of repeating the words "Islamic terrorism" over and over again. Such a term implies that Islam and terrorism are necessarily co-joined. Unfortunately, semantics do weigh heavily on simple minds, even more than pretty speeches, and removing that effect is what this is all about.

The past two weeks has seen liberals and Democrats trying to link Tea Party members with right wing extremists. The media was full of stories of Tea Party members committing acts of violence and hurtling 'racist slurs'. The attempted connection was obvious just as hey Lars pointed out to try to demonize the Tea Party movement as right wing fringe extremists. The liberals here said nothing to even try and dispel that false image and many here went so far as to even try to support the bogus claims and stereotypes that the Tea party was a reincarnation of the K.K.K

Now we have the the same folks here on this thread complaining about connecting Islam and terrorism in the same sentence as smearing all muslims and further foisting a negative stereotype of the entire Muslim culture and not the radical fringe of the religious nut cases that commit terror in its name instead.

I do have to point out the gross hypocrisy on display here by the left. You decry this linkage but if it is directed at something you don't like politically you are all for foisting it and actively promote it. Think about that the next time you decide to go after the 'tea-baggers' and their so called 'extremist' views.

Very respectfully to all and no disrespect intended or trying to cause any anger just something that had to be said on something that I have been wanting to point out to many posters for a long time now. I'll give Obama credit at least for showing that maybe his party should also drop the stereotypes they have been trying to foist on the Tea party movement as part of an outreach to all moderate Americans who do support the tea party movement that would be the majority of them and not just moderate muslims now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So some nutjob writes allah has told him to kill Americans and this is concrete proof for willib that 2 billion people are indoctrinated into this.

OK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We are at war with radical Islam have been since this started on Sept 11th and no amount of sugar coating is going to change that fact. Call like it honestly is Adverts."

The simple fact is that you can't wage war against an ideology.

I've already expalined why convincing the muslim world this isn't the war on Islam Bush Co made them think it was is important.

And let's face it, pretty speeches mean nothing when next you're fabricating tales to un-seat a secular leader that stomped on Islamic militants which results in an explosion (no pun) if Islamic terrorist activity.

You can't have it all...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America waged a war against communism and it went fairly well since we won the cold war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" try to demonize the Tea Party movement as right wing fringe extremists"

Heh, maybe they should better choose their shrieksperson, lest be tarred with the same brush?

I prefer the coffee movement anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"America waged a war against communism and it went fairly well since we won the cold war."

Communisum lost the cold war more like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the US is not at war with anyone right now? Well, with the Taliban perhaps, and Taliban support groups. And just occasionally with random groups who detonate themselves against America. These groups can be called extremists or terrorists, and they may happen to have a religious background, such as Hindu or Christian terrorists - which are still OK to say - and no Christians have trouble distinguishing Christian terrorists from the majority of non-terrorist Christians... or would it be a problem? Would Christians feel that their terrorists, if fighting for an extreme interpretation of the Bible, were somehow right, and an attack on them would be an attack on all Christians?)

Confused? You bet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign.

It's nice to know we're including the opinion of reasonable, rational people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts:

" The simple fact is that you can't wage war against an ideology. "

That is true. But you can address an ideoloy head on. Imagine WW2 or the Cold War being fought without being allowed to address the ideology of of Nazism or Communism. Imagine pretending that Nazism or Communism are ideologies of piece, and we just have to appease the Nazis and Communists, in order to avoid attacks by that tiny minority of misunderstands of said ideology.

That is the stupidity we are dealing with now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ideology is that of radical Islam.

We know how easily they're offended, right down to the muslims repulsed by the heinous acts of terrorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems like Obama is trying to throw US a bone here, but following the money I don't believe he is being truthful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind: That perception that we were at war with all of Islam came from the radical Muslim extremists themselves in their on-going propaganda war to win the support of their host populations.

I'd have to agree with that. And to some extent we also have the radical Left to thank.

I think Obama is making a mistake, but in the end it's not that big of a deal. You can't really remove Islam from a discussion about global jihad and still be honest about it. I've said before that Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, but there is a link, and by banning discussion of Islam you're denying the link exists. And besides, changing the words we use isn't going to change the image of a charred body and a terrorist note saying he did it in the name of Islam. Something tells me that's creating more of a link in people's minds than anything else, no matter what we say or do.

About being sensitive to the views of others....I dunno....on the whole I think the West does a bit of a better job than Muslim nations when it comes to political correctness. I can't say I was really all that concerned that we were the ones who needed to take a step forward. I suspect that Obama is mostly trying to score some points with the Left because his words strike that chord that makes them feel better about themselves and they really love that. But in the end I don't think it's going to do a lot with our relationship with Muslim nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: I still see it as a financial fiat debt and slavery (stripping people of their Constitutional Rights) war that the US populace and the World is losing.

Well, I digress. I was semi-mocking Muslims because they didn't want vaccines because they feared the CIA....and here we have someone most likely from the West who is probably a good counterpart to that Muslim. I guess "those people" exist on both sides....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: So some nutjob writes allah has told him to kill Americans and this is concrete proof for willib that 2 billion people are indoctrinated into this.

vs.

Madverts: I've already expalined why convincing the muslim world this isn't the war on Islam Bush Co made them think it was is important.

You seem to quickly stand up to anyone who claims Islam creates terrorists yet you seem to be adding credibility to the belief that Bush started a war against all of Islam...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." -- Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood)

Yet, the Obama crowd insists that this strive for domination has nothing to do with islam.

Where, then, do the islamists get their ideas from? Buddhism?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pure semantics, we are focused on stopping terrorism even if you leave out "Jihad" or "Islamic Extremism".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, its interesting the way you listen to extremists intently but ignore what everybody else has to say. Have you ever considered that? Maybe its time to stop listening the extremists WilliB. The sooner you start and see that error, the sooner you can convince others to stop listening to them also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"yet you seem to be adding credibility to the belief that Bush started a war against all of Islam..."

Are you seriously suggesting that the muslim world did not perceive Bush's so-called War on Terror as a war on Islam?

I don't think Islam creates terrorists any more than I think Catholics create sex offenders. But certain members of both sects have been involved in either/and A and B.

Throughout history other people have had their wills bent by others using religious texts. In fact, it's one of the things I find the most ridiculous about organized relgion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you seriously suggesting that the muslim world did not perceive Bush's so-called War on Terror as a war on Islam?

What I'm saying is that the Muslim world incorrectly perceived the War on Terror as a War against Islam. Lending credibility to their argument isn't helping things. I'm sure WillB believes Islams as a whole is at war with the West, but I don't think you'll start telling Muslims they must change to alter his point of view. You'll just call his argument bogus.

I don't think Islam creates terrorists

Neither do I. I think people create terrorists. And these people are using a perverted form of Islam to create terrorists. You can't blame Islam, but you can't remove it from the discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Note:

As soon as sailwind got backed into a corner, it's on about teabaggers and being vicimized by the media.

Typical conservative. It's always the other guys' fault. Any faster with that victim card and you may end up straining something, sail. I hope you stretched first.

I think what that president was trying to do was to simply eliminate any chance for "Islam" to be confused with "radical islam." During WW2, we were able to do that with the Germans. Germans were normal decent folk, Nazis on the other hand... Well, we don't have a different term to use in this case. It's a little over the top, in my opinion, but no where near over the top as the knee-jerk negative reaction to an Obama action.

When Obama breathes, sailwind, sarge and romeoramen go off on his abuse of oxygen. Whatever.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What I'm saying is that the Muslim world incorrectly perceived the War on Terror as a War against Islam."

Agreed.

And I've gone a step further and accused those responsible for doing so in the US. I've also critisized often enough here the muslims for getting in tantrums about things we Westerners see as relatively harmless, and not getting sufficently enraged when un-speakable things are done in the name of Islam (and usually done to muslims!)

"Lending credibility to their argument isn't helping things."

If the US under Bush Co bungled it, I'm hardly responsible for the way muslims perceive the so-called War on Terror.

"I'm sure WillB believes Islams as a whole is at war with the West, but I don't think you'll start telling Muslims they must change to alter his point of view. You'll just call his argument bogus."

When you've been on record saying Europe will be an Islamic colony by 2050, and more or less every post is the smae old tirade about Islam, I really don't think I'm left with much choice, buddy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama bans terms such as Islam, jihad from U.S. security strategy

A change of semantics, nothing more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can see the argument in trying to reach out to the moderate muslims. But bending over backwards to be PC when the Islamic extremists want to kill you for "offending" Mohammed in a cartoon is pretty lopsided. This is a pretty damn important government document and our collective rear ends are on the line so I really think watering down words for fear of hurting somepmne's feelings is assinine. Words should be nothing less than clear concise and accurate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it interesting how determined they are to stifle freedom of speech, unless of course your speech is the 'right' speech?

No, it's disgusting and un-American how determined conservatives are to stifle freedom of speech, unless of course your speech is the "right" speech. But thankfully, conservatives are also easy to defeat, so no problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir,

You'll have to point out where I mentioned race when I mentioned sailwind's temper tantrum.

Also, you seem to take considerable umbrage to the fact that conservatives are the cult of non-accountability. Such umbrage, in fact, it leads me to believe I may have touched on a raw nerve. Sorry if the truth stung. Not trying to be mean here.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You'll have to point out where I mentioned race when I mentioned sailwind's temper tantrum.

Did I say you had mentioned race? I've heard it said repeatedly, many Dems have been saying it. Claiming that the Tea Parties is racist is one of their mantras.

No, it's disgusting and un-American how determined conservatives are to stifle freedom of speech, unless of course your speech is the "right" speech. But thankfully, conservatives are also easy to defeat, so no problem.

Really, interesting comment. Shall I give you examples of the loons hate for non conformist speech? Start with the 'fairness' doctrine which seeks to stifle speech unless the opposing viewpoint is given equal time. Net neutrality which seeks to impose government controls on the internet. How about more specifically, the SEIU thugs beating up a black tea party protester, or the ever so friendly people who greeted Anne Coulter so warmly, as they did everything they could to keep her from speaking. Do I really need to give these examples? Now give me some on the opposite side.

Political correctness is merely one more tool used by the left, and I'm sad to admit it, some on the right, in an attempt to stifle freedom of speech. The idea that if someone might potentially be offended, then whatever might cause offense, must not be uttered is ludicrous. This is not Freedom! Freedom is being allowed to say whatever you want. Freedom is also being able to change the channel if you disagree with whats being said.

Those on the right are guilty of this as well, I don't deny it for a moment. However it is those on the left, that are the most filled with hatred, and violence, even as they preach tolerance. Its a sad fact, but those who preach this tolerance, are in fact tolerant only of those who believe as they do. Anyone else, is demonized or denounced. There are numerous examples of this, Sarah Palin being just one of many.

This ruling by Obama, to refuse to use words that address real concerns, is a sad and pathetic attempt to cover up the stark reality. To dress it up in a pretty dress, and attempting to convince people that it hasn't come to the party with a bomb strapped around its waist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a lot of misreporting about the Bush policy here. While Bush (sensibly) singled out islamic countries for special attention in regard to the fight against terrorism (duh... guess where where radical islam is preached; hint: not in Tibet), he was just as stuck in the "islam means peace" political dogma as Obama is, optimistically assuming that all the jihadists are just "misunderstanders" of the peaceful ideology of islam.

That is where political correctness has gotten us.

To hear some clear language from a US president, one has to go back to before the PC era:

"The essence of his (Mohammed) doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature." JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (Sixth President of The United States of America)

True, but verboten to say today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib:

" And these people are using a perverted form of Islam to create terrorists. "

That is the politically correct Western dogma. But I have yet to see a muslim scholar show that the islam of OBL and Al Quaeda is in any way "perverted".

I would love to see such an argument, but I have not, and I don´t see how it is possible without changing basic tenets of mainstream islam. Fact is, OBLs islam is very pure and literal. There is no theological flaw in it that you can show.

The argument that it is "perverted", however, is convenient to shut down any probing discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, you can find government pronouncements from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc., which clearly express the concept of wrongful/mistaken thinking by Al Qaida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course the "war on terror" is going to be perceived as a "war on Islam". When the majority of terrorism in our world today is of the Muslim flavor, it's only natural that it will look like a war against Islam. If Muslims don't like that, then why don't you weed out those rotten ones among you and tell them to cut it out?!?!?!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB said: That is the politically correct Western dogma. But I have yet to see a muslim scholar show that the islam of OBL and Al Quaeda is in any way "perverted".

It is more likely you have a short and selective memory. I would like to make a bet with you that, in fact, one or more posters have amptly countered your usual litany. But such a bet would not be allowed. But here is one for you, Muslim scholar condeming terrorism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD76cmBmSKI

His name is Maulana Marghoobur Rahman. Break out a post-it-note, put his name on it and stick it to the corner of screen so you will remember.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yokohamarider said: If Muslims don't like that, then why don't you weed out those rotten ones among you and tell them to cut it out?!?!?!

So easy to say! Right now, the most well funded military in the world is, and has been trying to root out HUIT in two countries for 9 and 6 years respectively. Plenty of people in those countries are fighting along side us. Yet they and us combined still have not solved the problem. The fanatics might be crazy, but they are crazy like a fox.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" And these people are using a perverted form of Islam to create terrorists. "

'Perverting' Islam simply means reading the Koran and doing what it says... and doing what Muhammad himself did. It's all there in the Koran and in 1400 years of Islamic military history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unsurprisingly, CAIR just loves this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/04/08/End-to-loaded-Islamic-terms-welcomed/UPI-23761270739326/

Could it be that this unsavory Hamas-linked group, which has opposed every anti-terror effort that has ever come down the pike, and has had several of its officials convicted of terror-related activity, wants to obscure the truth about the nature of the enemy we face? Naah -- couldn't be!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another example of the Political Correctness disease running amok...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is suicidal. It's like the president telling the country that the government will cure cancer because doctors and oncologists have been banned from talking about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama thinks his charm and new policy eliminating these "hurtful" words is going to make these terrorists like us more or hate us less. Proof positive that this man is a rank amateur at best and a fool at worst.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i can't wait until my fellow americans get a chance to vote obama out of office.

i am so tired of this administration and its nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Obama is being naive.. lets take the word Terrorist and say it doesn't exist.. maybe that will make it go away...... Seriously??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is duty n responsibility of all Muslims living in the U.S. to be loyal to the flag and to be law-abiding citizens.

Obama is just trying to show those who are Muslims and condemn all form of violence that they are not being cornered with criminal minded terrorists. Being commander in chief it is his job to protect and restore respect for all law-abiding citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites