I’m a bit lost here. What I am saying is that the president is afraid out of political correctness to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem.
That’s not an insult to normal Muslims, unless they see themselves as defenders of extremism bent towards violence.
Thanks.
The terrorists want Americans to associate Islam with terrorism. It helps their recruiting efforts in the Muslim world, creating a “us vs. the west” mentality there. The more that ignorant right wing Americans focus on the Islam part of radical Islam, the more it helps their cause. So Obama simply refuses to play their game- which seems to me to be the correct approach.
Blaming the President for being politically correct is probably the dumbest thing you can do. Part of a world leader’s job is to avoid offending people needlessly. They have to worry about every little thing they say because their words can have severe consequences.
Plus getting mad about a politician for being politically correct is like being mad at water for being wet. Why do you think it’s called being “politically correct”? The funny thing is that you don’t get that all your people who say what you want to hear are doing the same thing. No one in politics just says what they think.
Not that I think it’s a foregone conclusion that Obama thinks “radical Islam” is the real problem. Radical Islam is a symptom of a cultural issue. It dies out in places where the culture is not so anti-West. Islamists and Jihaddists are very rarely devoutly religious. They don’t go to mosques except to recruit.
And, let us not forget, the majority of Muslims say they do not represent Islam. I don’t refer to “radical Christians” or “violent Christians” who blow up abortion centers, either. As a Christian, I do not claim them.
That’s not true. The opposite is true. In fact, that statement is so false as to be absurd.
Oh. no, its quite true, over ninety percent of Al Queda is made up of Unitarians. That’s a true fact, you could look it up.
Anything that even hints at being “At War” with Islam, radical, violent or otherwise is a really really bad idea.
It would go down like a lead balloon all through Asia - especially the likes of Malaysia and Indonesia.
Is it really worth it to make enemies of these countries?
In my opinion it would also cause problems with Singapore. (I’m not going to talk about Europe or Middle East)
As soon as you make Islam the enemy - you will lose whatever support you are currently building.
People view things differently in this part of the World - VERY differently.
I guarantee you that if the Prez declares war on “Radical Islam” even the moderates I know here would see it as an attack on their religion
Acting as if Islam doesn’t matter in these kinds of cases is unhelpful. A decent understanding of Islamic factors at play in different situations is enormously useful in approaching groups and individuals with empathy and confidence.
I’ve said in the past on this board that the way President Obama talks about Islamic militancy is problematic and counterproductive in the long-run, but he is not in a position, unfortunately, where a long and nuanced speech on the matter will do any good.
For the President to say in a speech that the US is at war with Islamic radicals would not have any upside that I can see. Furthermore, it’s inaccurate, since there are only certain kinds of violence that the US is interested in stopping.
He really ought to be accurate and comprehensive – “fundamentalist terrorism”.
I think the real reason that right wingers want Mr. Obama to declare war on radicalized Islam is to legitimize their own Islamophobic bigotry. They want to say “Islamic radicalism”, but their mouth-breathing base really wants to hear “Islamic”. We do NOT want or need to demonize Islam, that would needlessly rock the boat and make our relations with much of the world more problematic.
I’m struck that those who are clamoring for Obama to identify our enemy as “radical Islam” place enormous trust in politicians and media outlets in the Muslim world to faithfully translate Obama’s words to their constituents and audiences in a non-incendiary way–in a way that perfectly captures the sense of “radical Islam” as understood by ordinary Americans. I think this is extremely naive. If Obama says “radical Islam,” lots of Muslims around the world will wind up thinking he meant “conservative Islam,” or “deeply-felt Islam,” or simply “Islam.” Promoting the perception that the US is at war with Islam is exactly what ISIS propagandists are trying to do. Why should we help them along in that project?
Given the very skeptical, even paranoid, lens through which many of the world’s Muslims view US foreign policy, the most responsible approach is to assume that they’ll put the least charitable spin on anything Obama has to say about Islam. Against that backdrop, his policy makes perfect sense from a national interest perspective, notwithstanding the case of blue-balls it seems to be giving many right-wingers these days.
I would really appreciate it if someone from the opposing side could explain why this point not only isn’t blazingly obvious, but downright wrong-headed. Because I’m baffled that this is even a thing.
So, we let these guys censor the language we use? They win!
Seriously, both sides are over-thinking this. The radical Islamists are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what we call them. And Obama can call them whatever he wants-- but when he tells us, to our faces, that it’s “incorrect” to call them Muslims, we get to laugh at him.
Just heard on NPR this morning that they are doing a special on the issue of “Islamic extremism” today. Obama can say what he wants to say, but the rest of us are going to call a spade a spade.
So, let’s stipulate, as should be uncontroversial, that Saudi Arabia is a backward kleptocracy run by a bunch of corrupt, morally retrograde thugs who support medieval-style punishments for bloggers who blaspheme against Islam, and in fact could fairly be described as some of the worst people on Earth.
If asked by a reporter at a press conference whether he agreed with this characterization, Obama would emphatically say “no.” Not because Saudi Arabia has “won” by “censoring” the language he uses, but because we (presumably) benefit from our relationship with the Saudis and such language would put those benefits in jeopardy.
And sure, we would have the right to laugh at the absurdity and insincerity of Obama’s stated position, but we would understand why–unlike the rest of us–the POTUS doesn’t have the luxury of calling a spade a spade, and there (presumably) wouldn’t be some big brouhaha over it in the commentariat. Why is this issue around “radical Islam” any different? Why are (mostly) right-wingers so hung up on this particular point?
Bolding mine.
How can you possibly be qualified to make a statement such as this? As others have pointed out here, there’s an issue of translation to account for, and that should not be waved off (which I sense is exactly what you’ll do).
You are a special little flower, you know that?
The translators can turn a press conference on the Keystone XL pipeline into an anti-Islam tirade.
Why are you so concerned with appeasing people who seek to deliberately deceive?
Actually, nevermind. That’s exactly what you are doing with the President. I laud your consistency.
Typical Dopers–most of you are missing the big picture.
Have you actually read sources such as Pamela Geller, WND or a ton of other sites that are ten times more direct than the Post? You want that shit to come true?
If Obama even hints at half the stuff the Post was calling foul on, Obama comes close to spraying the kind of bullshit they say is missing, and BAM!! the next thing you know the Post, Fox, the entire network of the jacked-in right wing marketing media will immediately begin calling for Sharia law here, begin calling for the Koran to be taught in public schools, decrying the War on Ramadan, begin calling for women’s faces to be covered and so on.
Gotcha. So if President Obama starts routinely incorporating into his speeches that “the real enemy is radical Islam,” and getting himself into the business of having to spell out where “radical” begins and where “non-radical” ends, the risk of making himself misunderstood on a highly sensitive topic is no greater than if he gave a press conference on an entirely unrelated policy issue. Makes total sense.
I have zero concern about appeasing jihadists. It’s the remaining 99% of the Muslim world that I seek not to offend so that a few Muricans (such as yourself) can feel validation for their anger.