Sorry, that would be telling.
And sorry twice, because yeah, it was a crappy attempt at a joke.
I read that in Don Pardo’s voice and now I want a case of Tutrtle Wax.
It’s not just the SotU. The WH is taking this whole “they aren’t Muslims” stance, which is is just PC nonsense (see the GD thread about same). I don’t care about the SotU address-- that’s all political theater. But when they say, in a press conference that it wouldn’t be accurate to call radical Islamic terrorist “Muslims”, it’s just an eye-roll moment.
So, yeah, the press picks up on this, and it’s not just the RW noise machine, even if that machine is making more noise about this than the main=stream press. This isn’t so much a “both sides” issue as a WH vs most of the rest of us issue. A mole hill of an issue, sure, but we’re all talking about it, right?
The best way to not have people talk about you being all PC about a thing is to not be all PC about that thing.
As much as I admire strict candor and a total no-bullshit approach, if that involves getting more people to be dead, I can kinda see my way clear to fudging a bit. As you probably know, John, I’m kinda weird and have some pretty strange ideas, but I think that one will stand up to scrutiny.
Our enemy’s number one recruiting point is shrieking mindlessly that we in particular and the “West” in general are at war with Islam. This is a bad thing, because it helps to make people dead (see above). People who would like to avoid making more people dead might well be justified in softening their rhetorical excesses, even at the expense of strict honesty. Which, even as much as I admire such ruthless candor, might well have reasonable limitations.
YMMV, of course…
This isn’t complicated. The vast majority of those who practice Islam do not support terrorism, so why implicate their religion? It’s very easy to dehumanize a group of people so that one dosen’t have to feel too bad about not thinking too much.
Calling oneself muslim does not make one muslim.
Sitting in a church on sunday does not make one christian.
He does not believe, who does not live according to his beliefs.
Right wingers would looove for the president to implicate islam, and alienate billions of people. Fortunately for us, Obama isn’t as stupid as right winger messege board ranters, or the people who feed them their “beliefs”.
I don’t think we SHOULD say that we’re “at war” with Islam, radical or otherwise. I don’t even think we should BE at war with radical Islamists anymore than we’re “at war” with the Crips.
We should worry a lot more about the things we DO rather than the things we SAY if we want to reduce the number of folks who are recruited by… dare I say it… Radical Islamist Movements.
I hesitate to offer you any of my wild-eyed crazy notions, but might we do both? Just a thought, mind you…
I never said we should choose one or the other. I just noted what the priority should be. I believe that the recruiting issue, which you raised, is significantly more related to actions taken by our government (you know, whether to bomb the shit out of some region or another) rather than certain phrases the president might or might not use.
I do not see the utility of diplomatic dishonesty, in this instance.
The President does not need to proclaim we are “At WARRRR with radical Islam!!!”
But to deny that Islam is central to this ongoing struggle is an insult born of misguided political correctness.
An insult to whom?
Those with whom a close relationship to reality is of import.
You are simply adorable. Don’t ever change, kiddo.
For future reference, I generally prefer substantive rebuttal prior to the obligatory personal swipe.
I know it’s not likely, but a boy can dream.
Tell you what, pallie, you first bring an answer with some substance to my initial question (and also include why it’s an insult), then I’ll respond in kind.
Well, beginning with George W. Bush, it has evidently been White House policy to downplay the Islam part and play up the extremism part. Hence, Bush referring to terrorists as “evildoers” who “hate our freedoms” and going out of his way to call Islam a “religion of peace.” Obama is merely continuing that approach. This “diplomatic dishonesty” serves the purpose of undercutting any claims that radical Islamic propagandists might make that we’re at war with Islam itself, which at best would be unhelpful to our cause and at worst would endanger American lives. If you want to focus instead on how much that strategy insults your intelligence, by all means carry on screaming at your TV screen.
That Bush had a soft spot for anything that could remotely be called a religion. I guess we’ll see if Jeb ( or King Jebebe) will continue in the family [del]blindness[/del] business.
How did Tom Friedman get dragged into this.
Also, the Saudi regime aren’t radicals and generally haven’t been seen as such. They’re just the opposite, being extremely conservative.
That doesn’t mean they’re not thoroughly disreputable.
Friedman wrote an editorial in the New York Times here, which I think people in this thread are upset about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/opinion/thomas-friedman-say-it-like-it-is.html?_r=0
So wait, the president flat-out saying “Islam is the problem” (you know, the same Islam which is the driving, defining cultural force in many countries we really *need *to curry as allies due to their resources and aid in the war on terror, and which is also the religion of a mistrusted and hated minority group here in the states) and damn near declaring war on the religion is not a big deal, diplomatically? But the president not showing up at a protest march in France at short notice, and instead opting to simply phone Hollande, send the AG to discuss counter-terrorism, and send the ambassador to the protest (to the degree where the Hollande administration made it excessively clear that Obama did good by them)… That is the big diplomatic faux pas?
Any time you make a statement on diplomacy and people take your interpretation seriously, I’m going to link to this. You’re a partisan-blinkered hypocrite.