world

Obama slams suggestion of Muslim test in wake of Nice attack

71 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

Tell me, what sort of armband should they wear? A yellow one with a star in it? That worked out so well last time, after all.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Wc, neighbors of the Nice perpetrator said he often frequented bars and gambled. His own sister claimed he neither drank nor smoked but never attended mosque. This puts his profile in alignment with the Pulse shooter. Go ahead and tear up the Constitution, remake America in a fascist sense, and encourage Jihadists across the world to say, "See, told ya so" all for an effort that would not have stopped either of these two attacks if you'd like. Some just have a far lower BS tolerance level.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Those who accuse Obama of being soft on radical Islam are the same as those who accuse him of being soft on immigration - they've completely abandoned Teddy Roosevelt's advice to "speak softly but carry a big stick."

The ISIS has lost some 20% of their territory since January, and things aren't looking up for them. Kerry this week in Moscow buried the hatchet a bit with Putin, emphasizing more cooperation in Syria. Those in the GOP, while they carp, have suggested zero as an alternative - because, really, there is nothing more to do against ISIS other than to put boots on the ground: let's say at least 100,000 for an undetermined amount of time in areas where where they really, really don't want us to be there. No worries, though. No doubt some of the heroes on this site would be glad to offer their bodies and/or tax dollars to bring this to a reality. Chicken hawks.

Meanwhile, the GOP plank calls pornography a "disease" yet still prohibits by statute the CDC from investigating causes and determining remedies for gun violence. The GOP calls Obama "divisive," then proceeds to call for dividing Americans by religion. Pathetic, sure, but illustrative of the overall point: They are more eager to score political points and look "tough," pretending to have neat solutions to very complex problems, then they are in actually resolving the problems.

No worries, though. Trump/Pence is toast in November; the GOP, as usual, will find themselves incapable of learning anything from their drubbing; and America will continue its inexorable shift to the right, aided by two or three Supreme Court Justices chosen be Hillary. Sleep in the bed you've made.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

We actually have people on this site okaying the idea of identification armbands. People often freak out when you make those Nazi comparisons, but this isn't exactly a comparison. It's just straight up old school Nazism. Congratulations, racism and paranoia have converted American citizens into the exact spitting image of all those guys in the old newsreels. They loved their armbands, too.

And a loyalty test for Muslims? "Hello, are you loyal to the US?' "Of course!" "Are you planning to blow anything up?" "Oh, of course not." I loved the novel Catch-22 when it was satire. Now it's practically a daily account of Colonel Trumpcart's rise to power. Captain Black and his "loyalty oath" campaign. I have zero love for anyone who would spill blood for ISIS or whoever it is we're fighting, but that doesn't mean I like any of you guys, either. Didn't take much to strip away the thin veneer of American idealism to reveal the ugly core of hate and cowardice within. Terrorists are despicable and so are Trump supporters. Unrecognizable as Americans. I don't know what you are but you're certainly no countrypeople of mine. Go make your own nation somewhere and parade around with your armbands and gun-love far away from a land where people actually died within memory of many still living to put down the exact same things you guys are espousing here on JT.

The exact same things.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Good question, albaleo - answer it and become famous. My point is the Nice and Pulse perpetrators had no ties to any radical organizations and very loose ties to Islam itself. In my opinion, it's a mistake in cases such as these to become so infatuated with the religious aspect that all other insights are ignored - after all, the vast majority of mass shootings in America are committed by (at least nominal) Christians, yet except for cases such as the abortion clinic shooting a few months ago in which the shooter clearly stated a religious basis for his crime, society looks for answers apart from religion (and even in that case, the emphasis was on his clear mental instability, not on Christianity).

Better mental health would be a start, but really, there's only so much a society can do. The frightening aspect of vehicles as weapons is that their use is impossible to prevent. Let's hope there aren't any copycats.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

My pleasure, Sam. My work in the graduate department (science) at my local university over a decade has brought me into close contact with a diverse array of Muslims from a variety of sects and countries, some deeply religious, others quite lapsed. I hold no more fondness for Islam than I do for any other religion - particularly monotheistic, anthropocentric religions - but I do respect their sincerity. More than that, I believe we've got a narrow window to pass through this stage without completely screwing it up, and not screwing it up is of extreme importance.

When I hear Obama speak, his efforts to thread this difficult needle are quite evident. Others simply throw bombs whether due to ignorance or cravenness. What's crucial is to focus on what is possible now and desirable in future and not to surrender to fear or panic, for the latter will kill the former, and the former are mankind's only real hope.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Bass, Mark - calm down. Evidence linking common traits in recent mass attacks point towards violence towards women, whether actually committed such as DV or imagined in the form of SM posts. Misogyny - that is the key you are searching for. It is the link between the Pulse shootings and the Nice massacre. No doubt that Islam plays a peripheral role in creating cultural expectations that modern society cannot meet - but then again, so do many strains of Christianity. Increasingly, what we're seeing here is men going bonkers.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mass-killers-terrorism-domestic-violence.html

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Newt has always loved the headlines. No surprise here. But he is a despicable man and NO leader.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

A.N. OtherJUL. 16, 2016 - 08:46AM JST Ah, the Sharia boogeyman. No one has ever called for Sharia law to be imposed on anyone in the US who doesn't voluntarily wish to be bound by it anyway... | Which is of course perfectly acceptable. -Facepalm-

It seems to be acceptable for every other religion and various non-religious principles. No one has a problem with the voluntary adjudication under Catholic law, or Jewish law, or even courts that adjudicate under no principle other than what makes good TV. But thanks to the FUD getting spread by Islamophobes, say the word "Sharia" and people just assume it's a completely different animal from "The People's Court" with Judge Wapner.

bass4funkJUL. 16, 2016 - 09:46AM JST Obama has.

Citation or it didn't happen.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sam, one can guess that, if a shooter is white, he's nominally Christian. (Disclaimer: I'm a white male loosely raised Episcopalian but have been atheistic since college.) Some mass casualty deaths are clearly terrorism such as the San Bernardino shootings (Islamic) or the Oklahoma City bombing (anti-Federalism). Others are simply nuts with a gun such as the Aurora or Sandy Hook shootings, both perpetrated by white males with no apparent meaning. My question is, while Islamic terrorism certainly exists, why when a nominally Islamic person goes berserk is it automatically classified as the former (terrorism) and not the latter (nut), but that the reverse is never true?

In fact, government agencies such as the FBI are very careful not to go down that road. Whatever public opinion and the news frenzy dish up, these agencies are careful to distinguish between "terrorism" - a violent act to terrify a populace so as to further a particular aim, whether religious or secular - and simply a nut who cracked. It is unfortunate that the word "terrorism" has taken on the inescapable nuance of "Islamic" as not only does it muddy the waters, it is very unfair to certain marginalized groups such as abortion providers or the LGBT community who are often attacked. For example, the Pulse attack was could well be termed terrorism but not Islamic: Instead, it was anti-LGBT, with the perpetrator's religion simply incidental - but try to persuade a conservative to acknowledge that.

Not enough is known about the Nice perpetrator to ascertain his motives - or whether, indeed, he had any motive at all. My point is that knee-jerk classification and instant conclusions are not just unfair both to the groups they malign and, sometimes, to their victims, they are detrimental to accurate analyses and corresponding countermeasures.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Did someone actually voice this? Or is this Obama's opinion

Newt Gingrich. Do you read the news?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Sorry, Sam, I'd meant to link to this list of US mass shootings for your reference. http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Fizz, did you spend the last couple of days in bed? Gingrich's comments on Fox were the most egregious (some suggest he was still angling for Trump's VP slot as Trump vacillated over Pence), but combine this with Trump's previous comments and the undoubted cache they have with his supporters and it's not too hard to imagine how widespread this sentiment is in Trump-land. The transcript is here; I'd suggest you read it. https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/14/fox-newt-gingrich-calls-muslims-be-deported-if-they-believe-sharia/211594

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Wc626: expect special treatment so that we do not offend them.

That's reserved for American Christians and their cake businesses and marriage license offices.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

shrugs his shoulders thinking, it's just something we have to live with is unacceptable to most Americans.

Actually that response is reserved for gun nuts every time a school is shot up.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The world is facing a deadly challenge. An evil ideology is spreading with the aim to bring down societies that oppose it. The Nazis used tanks and uniforms. Later the Communists used more subtle weapons in addition to tanks and uniforms. Now the Shariast (is that the term?) are using terror and the Koran in addition to standard weapons. The good people on this earth must find a way to repel these barbarians. It won't be easy. IMHO we will have to reassess what is politically and morally acceptable. This is war I'm afraid.

A test for Sharia supporters makes some sense. it would not be a religious test but a political one. We need some where to draw the line. That seems a feasible one. We wouldn't take in Nazi sympathizer, why should we accept Sharia sympathizes?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

As per usual, when the motivations are obviously clear but the perpetrators are non-white, Obama reserves judgment.

Any responsible leader reserves judgement until the facts are in, as making judgement without the facts is irresponsible.

If the perpetrator were a white cop, Obama would be quick to point out that he is an evil racist.

I agree with you 100% based on the fact that he has never done this even once, nor said such a thing a single time. I prefer the lies told in the bubble over the truth, because the truth makes Obama look bad, but the lies in the bubble make him look horrible! And we can't have our muslim nigerian self-annointed god looking good, that would make it too easy to vote in a black president again in the future. Can't be having that.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

What excuse will the anointed once again make for* Jihadism?

He's never made any excused for jihadism. Why would he start now?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What has always been interesting to me is that the unwillingness of Obama in not wanting to hit the nail on the head and confront ISIS

Obama is confronting ISIS.

never wanting to admit we are at war

America is not at war.

Time and time again, he won't acknowledge it and calls the operation, what in actuality is a war

No declaration of war has been made, therefore it's an operation, not war.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

we were at war with radical Jihadism before Bush took office

No.

he does bare some responsibility for going in to a point

bare

Obama has been directly responsible for the outgrowth of ISIS

No.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bass4funkJUL. 16, 2016 - 07:20AM JST Why, oh, why am I not surprised by this?! What excuse will the anointed once again make for Jihadism?

No American president has ever made an excuse for "jihadism."

MarkGJUL. 16, 2016 - 07:21AM JST Sharia has no place in USA. The US constitution is our law. Nothing more to say.

Ah, the Sharia boogeyman. No one has ever called for Sharia law to be imposed on anyone in the US who doesn't voluntarily wish to be bound by it anyway - talk of Sharia courts in the US is exclusively limited to the kinds of religious arbitration already permitted for other religions without incident.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

After Isis then who?

---- We need to get ISIS!

-- ISIS is retreating. We've almost got them

---- That's not enough!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"... after all, the vast majority of mass shootings in America are committed by (at least nominal) Christians...."

Can you provide a link or something to prove that? I just did a quick check and CNN said the top three indicators of mass shootings are 1.) Race (white), 2.) Gender (male) and 3.) Mental illness.

Also, let's remember that as bad and horrible as mass shootings are, they rarely approach the number of murders committed in Chicago and Detroit over a week-end.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Citation or it didn't happen.

I think we can rest assured that it didn't happen.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Laguna. Thanks for the links.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did someone actually voice this?

Someone actually voiced this on this very site. And all over the internet. And Newt Gingrich.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The usual and 2-3-4 in a row. Don't they have jobs or anything better to do?

I'm here only to let the moderators know someone has a few free moments occasionally to try reviving their consciences, as they tell themselves they "just do their job."

Quite a sick crowd you've collected and protect, JT. That says much about you, you know - all too well.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Called it. Japanese internment camps In the US during WW2, and now this. As I said, when everyone gets sick and tired of excuses for tolerating Islamic intolerance, more excessive measures will be considered. Besides, don't some Islamic countries require a person's religion be posted on their identification cards? Y'know so they can deny certain services and support if someone isn't Muslim?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well obviously whatever "test" there is for foreigners and immigrants would start to be applied to American citizens when a homegrown terrorist carries out an attack. It's not like the paranoia crowd is going to stop themselves.

People often freak out when you make those Nazi comparisons, but this isn't exactly a comparison. It's just straight up old school Nazism.

I think people look at the past and think, "Oh, well obviously we're not them" which gives them the idea that it's safe to "temporarily" restrict civil liberties here. They want us to believe that going down that same road is somehow different when we do it.

And anyone who would say or support this obviously has next to no interactions with Muslims in their daily lives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Of course it did.

Nope, didn't happen.

He's always made an excuse by not naming what or identifying who the enemy is

He has identified who the enemy is.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And history also shows us the mistakes we made with some of those measures. Yet, here we are again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Besides, don't some Islamic countries require a person's religion be posted on their identification cards? Y'know so they can deny certain services and support if someone isn't Muslim?

Muslim's bad. But Muslim's do this bad thing, so lets do it too.

-- But doesn't that bring us down to their level?

Yeah, but it's us doing it, so it's not bad.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sure he did

No he didn't.

the proof of that is Obama has never and will never acknowledge or even entertain the thought of engaging ISIS.

America is already engaging ISIS.

The fact is Muslims are suffering because of this more than anyone. But so far they have not been able to get their house in order. Somehow we must separate those who support our societies and values from those looking to destroy us.

I can imagine this comment coming from those in the middle east regarding America:

"The fact is Muslims are suffering because of America more than anyone. But so far they have not been able to get their house in order. Somehow we must separate those who support our societies and values from those looking to destroy us"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Without naming names, Obama responded to a suggestion from Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker, who on Thursday said a religious test was needed for Muslims in America, deporting them if they believe in Sharia law."

"Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for the Nov 8 presidential election, has called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country." - article

Hand out the arm bands and the GOP-tea swings into action with their 'Dictator in Chief'.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Perversely, Gingrich will wear this criticism on his arm like a badge of honor.

He's almost as repugnant as the ISIS converts.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Misogyny - that is the key you are searching for. It is the link between the Pulse shootings and the Nice massacre.

@laguna, you may be on to something. Misogyny plus a love of guns and large vehicles. (Or are they all part of the same disease?) The ISIS guys seem to fit that picture, as do various other nutcases who commit atrocities. Any thoughts on how a misogyny test would be conducted?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Get smart or get out!

If getting smart involves raising my intelligence above the average, you've constructed a steep barrier. Or did you mean something else?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

History is filled with examples of temporary measures taken in time of war and disaster. Healthy societies need to do that in its own self interest. Things do return to normal. Those who think it means the Nazis are coming are the paranoid ones.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

His reluctancy to do so and seeing the frustration on the faces of the people that REALLY want to take swift action to deal with this problem shows a lack of willingness on his part trying to pass radical Jihadism as a fad.

The American people have no wish for more war in the Middle East.

74% of the casualties that came out of Afghanistan were under Obama

100% of the casualties that came out of Afghanistan were due to Bush starting the war.

it's just over the top insulting that this guy thinks we are all a bunch of idiots

If people don't want to be thought of as idiots, they shouldn't do and say idiotic things.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Islamic extremists have evidently declared war on the West ! Yet, this simple self evident fact is being ignored time after time Many misguided Brits voted for Brexit because of it. The French will vote in La Pen as the Americans will vote in Trump! And if the killings don't stop then Muslims will rightly or wrongly targeted! History shows that pogroms have occurred for far lesser reasons....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'The fact is Muslims are suffering because of America more than anyone. But so far they have not been able to get their house in order. Somehow we must separate those who support our societies and values from those looking to destroy us"

I have a suggestion. Instead of being clever why not make your point. Your little transcribing trick doesn't shed much light.

I will try to understand you, I suppose you are blaming America for all political turmoil in the in the Middle East. Is that right?

For argument sake I'll give you that conceit., America is the root cause of all problems in the region. So that means we should therefore not try to isolate the terrorist to protect ourselves? Why? To punish ourselves? And I take it moderate Muslims should seperate themselves from the US because we want to destroy their societies? I suppose the radical terrorist are not the problem we are. Is that right? Ok suppose we are the problem and not radical Islam, how do you suggest the Moderates go about separating from us? To what end? Can you clarify?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newt called for a test to determine whether or not Muslims believe in Shariah law. A couple of questions;

1.) Is Shariah law a religion or is it fascism in religious clothing?

2.) The US does NOT allow Mormons to practice polygamy and hunts them down relentlessly when they do (the current leader Jeffs is now on the run). The reason being that the welfare of society (in the case of the Mormons/polygamy we are talking about children) trumps certain religious freedoms. Does this set a precedent that can be used to weed out the Shariah murderers from the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful?

3.) Would anyone, seriously, claim that Shariah is compatible with western civilization?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump will be so much better

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sharia has no place in USA. The US constitution is our law. Nothing more to say.

If that means I need to wear an armband, so be it. Just go be clear an armband for freedoms not the opressive armbands liberals wear.

-1 ( +18 / -19 )

Ah, the Sharia boogeyman. No one has ever called for Sharia law to be imposed on anyone in the US who doesn't voluntarily wish to be bound by it anyway...

Which is of course perfectly acceptable. -Facepalm-

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But, but, but . . he was still shouting "god is great" according to the French police investigating the incident.

He may not have been part of ISIS, but a radical Jihadist nonetheless and our so called president that cowardly refuses to call out radical Islam and from what it looks from supporting Erdogan you can really see where this guys loyalties rest. It's now clearer than ever, this president is making excuses for Jihadism and supporting Erdogan is the proof of it. January can't come soon enough!

What I won't tolerate are ten thousand or more coming "directly from over there" and we don't know who they are. These people really do not love America.

Pretty much. But remember, screw what the people want, the anointed one thinks we should take in possible Jihadist in and that's just how it's going to be! Now shut up and deal with it until I leave office. But when has this guy EVER cared what the public thinks of him?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

'Any responsible leader reserves judgement until the facts are in, as making judgement without the facts is irresponsible.'

I believe Hollande quickly commented that the connection to terrorism was clear.

The progressives will quibble about layers of motives and actual connections to real cells etc. This problem has gone past one of organized religious fanatics. Angry Muslims of all stripes are joining the fight because they want to. It's broadening and deepening. We are in for a rough ride. And PC approaches will crumble. Besides the west coast Japanese camps FDR arrested Germans and Italians living in the US. They don't come more progress than FDR. Hold onto your hats.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

There is a lot off hand wringing about armbands as a result of Newt's suggestion. Of course that is hyperbole. No one has said anything about arm bands. As distasteful as it may be to some the fact is something more needs to be done. If tactics are failing new tactics will be explored. It's pretty basic stuff if you look at history. People demand peace and security from their leaders.

The fact is Muslims are suffering because of this more than anyone. But so far they have not been able to get their house in order. Somehow we must seperate those who support our societies and values from those looking to destroy us. Using support of Sharia Law as a litmus test is one of the better ideas I've heard. But I'm open to hear others.

And let's remember, this is not just about the US either. Changes will be coming world wide if this continues. And unfortunately it's only escalating.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Of course mistakes are made. But which choice is the mistake? History might tell us. In the meantime we need answers to a serious problem. The status quo is not working. Next suggestion.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I have a suggestion. Instead of being clever why not make your point.

I prefer not do dumb down my points. If you don't get it, just move on.

I will try to understand you, I suppose you are blaming America for all political turmoil in the in the Middle East. Is that right?

Nope.

So that means we should therefore not try to isolate the terrorist to protect ourselves?

We should stop meddling in the middle east, removing as much reason to want to attack us as possible. We should definitely deal with the terrorists.

But anyone who thinks that terrorism can be eliminated through fighting and war is kidding themselves. Terrorism is an idea, not a concrete item. All it takes for terrorism to continue is for someone else to decide they are going to be a terrorist. And every time we kill an innocent in the Middle East, or disenfranchise a Muslim in the west, we create an environment where that idea of terrorism is easier for someone to pick up in their hatred at what we've done.

We'll never fight our way to peace. Ever. It cannot be done.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There are only so many attacks a society will tolerate before a reset kicks in. Unfortunately these attacks will continue till that line is crossed. Elections will bring new governments with more hard line solutions. You may as well start getting used to it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sure he did and the proof of that is Obama has never and will never acknowledge or even entertain the thought of engaging ISIS. Once Obama can emphatically admit and say what we are up against and declare war on the Jihadists, say that we are in a war with radical Jihadists, I will go on the record and apologize to Obama. But something tells me, I won't need to do that.

The fact is Muslims are suffering because of this more than anyone. But so far they have not been able to get their house in order. Somehow we must separate those who support our societies and values from those looking to destroy us.

BINGO!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I tend to disagree with the idea that Muslims are suffering so others must give sympathy and support them.

We "do not know" exactly who or which Muslim are actually suffering and who or which Muslim are Jihadists and Terrorists.

If indeed they are suffering and do disagree with the "interpretation" of the Koran and the "actions" of the Jihadists, then "they" not others MUST first and foremost stand up and face their own problem. That is.., "if" they consider it their problem. Sop far very little is evident that the rest of the Muslim world are really concerned.

For the rest of us that just happened to not be Muslims or believe in the Koran, are also suffering and suffering the most. Regardless of economic and social conditions of the Islamic world and their Muslims, everyone else is also suffering economic and social conditions, such as the blacks, Hispanics, the Asians, the Polynesians, etc.

The problems are of course partially religious. The social-political structures created by religious way of life, which is also the same for Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and every other religion (because it gives a standard of values to live by) does play a role in how well and how quickly that society is willing and able to modernize and keep up with change.

If economics and power are the motivations then it is no different than China, Russia, the EU and even the USA which play an important role. However, if religion is the major motivation, and if is to dominate the world (such as by a Caliphate), then we have a major problem which cannot be resolved without the complete subjugation of one over another or by a symbiotic relationship.

Here the discussion is to help identify such Jihadists from those that may not be. The problem is now. The threat is immediate. The need is for meaningful, reasonable and practical action. It is obvious that even among the Muslims they are too busy trying to resolve their own racial and religious differences while the rest of the world is being used. If the rest of the Muslim world does not stand up to face their problem, we cannot help but stand strong for ourselves. That takes courage and commitment and not rationalization.

It has very little with who says what for what ever idealistic reasoning. As I mentioned above, idealism does not stop the enemy that does not believe in that idealism anyway.

Feeling sorry for those who were victims is nice, but when we do "know" that more is to come.... action and not rhetoric. The enemy has already been determined, we just need to know who they are, where they are and eliminate them before they eliminate us. (if there is a gun in your face and other guns being pointed at your family, what would you do? Would you say it is illegal and immoral to have a gun and use it to shoot you and your family?)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Counter-intuitive good idea. Profiling is necessary for security sake. A strong posture for security and against terrorism is important.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Obama did not explicitly link the attack to Islamic State militants who have been connected to other recent attacks around the globe, saying that the details were not yet clear.

As per usual, when the motivations are obviously clear but the perpetrators are non-white, Obama reserves judgment. If the perpetrator were a white cop, Obama would be quick to point out that he is an evil racist. That's just how Obama rolls.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I believe Hollande quickly commented that the connection to terrorism was clear.

So?

Angry Muslims of all stripes are joining the fight because they want to.

You don't say. I wonder why that is. I wonder...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

DONALD TRUMP IS THE SAVIOR! He's the one and only choice. Get smart or get out!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What has always been interesting to me is that the unwillingness of Obama in not wanting to hit the nail on the head and confront ISIS, never wanting to admit we are at war, never wanting to say radical Islam, this is the worst guy to lead and to run around pathetic. Time and time again, he won't acknowledge it and calls the operation, what in actuality is a war, he won't say, I am sending soldiers to fight this war against radical Jihadism, instead, he says, he's sending military advisors.

Sickening this guy! As I said, I am waiting for this guy to come out and surprise me.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

People can make an argument about Bush going into Iraq if it was a good or bad thing, but we were at war with radical Jihadism before Bush took office and it goes back to 1993, so libs can spare that blame. It didn't start with Bush, but he does bare some responsibility for going in to a point. Obama has been directly responsible for the outgrowth of ISIS and the funny thing about it is, liberals never mention that the over 650.000 people have been murdered MORE during the sectarian violence than by US soldiers, for some reason, the left is silent about that, every single time.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

'The ISIS has lost some 20% of their territory since January, and things aren't looking up for them.'

After Isis then who?

Islamic terrorism has been growing in scope and depth for decades. It gets bigger and more depraved by the day. You cut off its head and ten more grow in its place. There are long term and short term tactics needed. No question the west needs to pull back from the region. That will take time and serious leadership. But containing and isolating the threat is a more immediate concern. The walls have been breached the barbarians are no longer at the gate. It has been opened. Oops.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Interesting discussion so far.

The issue is how to stop terrorism by identifying terrorists and stopping them before they do any harm within the USA. It is an issue about the rational, pragmatic and practical polices and procedures (action not theories or idealism) way to identify the terrorists. Call it vetting or profiling any other word, but the key is to have a place and time to physically do the checking and to have certain criteria to do that checking. That actually takes time and requires certain movement to "stop" (migration/immigration) at a place/s where that checking can be done.

In that process the criteria is at this time obvious. Whether we may like it or not, the terrorist have by themselves identified who they are and all evidences point to people of certain religion; Islam, and from all parts of the world of all races. The only common denominator in this case happens to be Islam. The problem is that they may not be just Muslims by birth, but by conversion. And not just simple conversion but to Jihad. The only way to scrutinize is by the process of elimination from the mass to the individual or group.

That means questioning, which is basically to test by criteria established.

The problem then becomes what is the criteria to use. One criteria that cannot and must not be excluded happens to be Islam as a religion and Muslim, those who follow and live by that religion. Otherwise, there is no way to identify the current terrorist threat throughout the world.

There are other terrorists too. However, they are more nation specific, such as those based upon race (black vs white) or even political orientation such as far right vs far left in the USA.

So the final issue is not Obama or Trump or any individual's opinion or rhetoric, it is what action must be taken.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

A strong posture for security and against terrorism is important.

When faced with a choice of being firm or fair, it is reasonable to conclude that being "firm" generally pays the greater divided. Don't let Obama fool you with his dividing trickery with words.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

black sabbath:

" "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." "

That is a nice concept, but the problem with that is that islamis a political ideology masquerading as a religon. And as long as we fail to address that, we will keep losing.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Citation or it didn't happen.

Of course it did. just turn on the TV and watch him weave his spell of spins.

He's always made an excuse by not naming what or identifying who the enemy is, but I really don't understand why so many people get worked up about this guy, just a few more months and it will be all over, thankfully.

The issue is how to stop terrorism by identifying terrorists and stopping them before they do any harm within the USA. It is an issue about the rational, pragmatic and practical polices and procedures (action not theories or idealism) way to identify the terrorists. Call it vetting or profiling any other word, but the key is to have a place and time to physically do the checking and to have certain criteria to do that checking. That actually takes time and requires certain movement to "stop" (migration/immigration) at a place/s where that checking can be done.

Agreed. But when you have a weak leader that refuses to aggressively take on radical Jihadism and shrugs his shoulders thinking, it's just something we have to live with is unacceptable to most Americans.

So the final issue is not Obama or Trump or any individual's opinion or rhetoric, it is what action must be taken.

Precisely and making excuses or lecturing people as to why we need to try and understand the Jihadists or giving a false impression that the radical Jihadists are not to be feared is a person seriously devoid of reality

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

This trash murderer yelled "Allah Akbar" with a copy of "ISIS" inspired materials with him when killing innocent civilians including children. Even thought he might not be a die hard Muslim devotee- he is a Muslim. This is a hard reality among many Muslims around the world, especially in the West that seem to have conflict value system on oneself and can turn into a radical Muslim terrorist ( Allah' soldier) in a snap. To stop these carnage, we must see as it is, thus getting to the root of the problems. Obama had Muslim root,(worn Muslim dress....) is trying very hard to defend his childhood Islamic experiences, and neither lacking of in depth understanding, nor totally denying the facts of reality. In so doing, this misguided perceptions make the world into a very dangerous place; especially among Muslim nations. This failure from the top that supporting by the 1% corrupted liberal elites including mass media around the world is turning the world backward toward chaos in opposite direction from even their own ideas. WE ARE PAYING THE PRICES FOR THEIR FAILURES. Islam needs REFORMATION and the world must confront such beliefs or practices that are against human rights, extremism, and real value of democracy, including abusive of woman, sex with children as sacred, unscientific dogma... Beware of the evils of Trojan horse, folks.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

And group hugs ain't going to do it.

Apparently neither is rescinding the "waterboarding" policy. Why is Obama so soft on radical islam?

We need to show these people that they cannot immigrate into the US and expect special treatment so that we do not offend them.

Angry Muslims of all stripes are joining the fight because they want to.

Funny you should say that. Heck the Sunni and Shiites prob hate eachother more than they do the West. What's that ol' saying: "Blood is thicker than water."

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Well, I'm confused. I thought Shariah wasn't part of true Islam. First we are told that atrocities committed by radicals are not true Islam but now we are being told that we can't ban Shariah because it's part of a religion (Islam!).

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

“In the wake of last night’s attacks, we’ve heard more suggestions that all Muslims in America be targeted, tested for their beliefs, some deported or jailed,” Obama said.

Did someone actually voice this? Or is this Obama's opinion. Poorly written article. Divide and conquer.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Why, oh, why am I not surprised by this?! What excuse will the anointed once again make for Jihadism?

-9 ( +15 / -24 )

No American president has ever made an excuse for "jihadism."

Obama has. So when has Obama called for aggressively trying to dismantle Jihadism?

Ah, the Sharia boogeyman. No one has ever called for Sharia law to be imposed on anyone in the US who doesn't voluntarily wish to be bound by it anyway - talk of Sharia courts in the US is exclusively limited to the kinds of religious arbitration already permitted for other religions without incident.

Oh, please! Even in Turkey, the majority of people are tired of the country slowly been Islamized that's why you're seeing this Coup taking place. We've already had a number of honor killings in the states and that the US is slowly becoming a hot bed for racial Islam, now I know liberals could care less as the president doesn't care, he never took ISIS serious until recently and even that seriousness is questionable. Had Obama taken Jihadism seriously, he would have taken action years ago when he was advised by the Pentagon to do so.

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

Islamic terrorism has been growing in scope and depth for decades. It gets bigger and more depraved by the day. You cut off its head and ten more grow in its place. There are long term and short term tactics needed. No question the west needs to pull back from the region. That will take time and serious leadership. But containing and isolating the threat is a more immediate concern. The walls have been breached the barbarians are no longer at the gate. It has been opened. Oops.

Oh, and without a doubt.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

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