There are and were a number of criminal organizations like the mafia that are not Italian in ethnic make up. Mafia has become somewhat generic in describing organized crime. These organizations are frequently ethnicity based, but not representative of those ethnicities in general.
Pretty much this and similar to comments made by his predecessor…
"We know Islam is a religion that teaches love and peace and compassion. No, our struggle is against evil people – evil people that claim they’re religious, but are not."
*“Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” *
-
“The Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.” *
-
“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.” *
No, it is much more like saying that the Mafia are not (good) Catholics and do not follow the precepts of Christianity (all that stuff about “Thou shalt not kill,” etc., etc.). On a very reasonable interpretation (though not the only possible one), that is true, and on a similar reasonable interpretation, Obama’s statement about ISIL is also true. It also has in its favor the fact that it is a position that is much more likely to be helpful rather than harmful in furthering the fight against ISIL than any statement to the contrary would be.
This. Outside the far Right, condemning any religion is a significant taboo in American politics, even when circumstances like this don’t apply.
And Obama isn’t just a guy on a message board; if he started looking like he was condemning Muslims in general, it’s likely to be taken as a declaration of religious war like you said. It would harden Muslim attitudes against the US, as well as be taken as encouragement for violence and harassment here in the US. Being President means you have to watch what you say.
Then he should have remained silent. If he’s incapable of mentioning the fact that ISIL is an explicitly Islamic organisation without tarring all Muslims with the same brush, that doesn’t mean he has to lie about it.
Well, there are a whole bunch of people who should remain silent but don’t. The President’s job is to show up in a suit and say stuff. So if you don’t like it, Boo-hoo. We don’t like it when your guy is in office and says anything either. As long as Obama orders the launching of some ordnance up ISIL asses and doesn’t hit civilians, I’m okay with it. And I’m glad he put Congress on the spot.
It’s not a lie, it’s a perspective. Too many people on opposite political sides like to decide that if someone on the other side doesn’t agree with their perspective, they’re lying. It’s bunk.
Actually, yes it does mean he has to lie about it. As President it’s part of his job to do so, despite it being a transparent lie that everyone sees right through. It’s diplomacy in action.
Why is that?
Here he is, sending John Kerry all over the place trying to line up support in the Muslim world for the attacks against ISIS. If saying some political nonsense helps persuade people in that world that this is a battle they can join - or even helps give them cover to do so - why not say it?
Plenty of moderate/non-practicing Muslims do eat pork/drink alcohol though. Much like Christians who only go to church for weddings and funerals and wouldn’t recognize a Commandment if it smote them in the face, they still self-identify as Muslims.
Um, no, I know islamophobes of all stripes have a particular fondness for that one specific quote, but from the context surrounding it (which is to say, the wordy-words that come before and after it, that are always mysteriously absent for some opaque reason) that one line is pretty crystal in the narrowness of its application and implications : the passage in its entirety concerns the procedures for brokering treaties and ceasefire-making, especially when there are non-combatants caught in the cross-crossbowfire. It does not concern when to make war or upon whom.
The point and emphasis of the line is thus not, as Westerners in dire search of a smoking gun assert, on “kill all the motherfuckers all the time” (which was well understood to be sort of the point back then) but rather on “don’t break your treaties (those are the “sacred months” in question) ; and don’t lose sight of the ultimate purpose of warfare (i.e. bringing peace about)”. The killy part is more about emphasizing “it’s not being a pussy to do it my way and not kill **all **of the people **all **of the time, broheem”.
And in the context of 8th century warfare, that was about as Geneva as it got.
Because lies have no place in a call for war. I thought we all understood that after the last Iraq clusterfuck. Remember that one? Remember how Bush spoke of Saddam Hussein as if he was a completely separate entity to the country he controlled, and how the Iraqi people were supposed to greet us as liberators?
This is not a substantive lie. It makes no practical difference to what Obama is trying to do whether ISIL is Islamic or not, so no one is being deceived into any action that they would not otherwise undertake. Which is besides for the fact that no one needs to rely on Obama for this anyway - it’s not like anyone thinks he has some unique insight into whether ISIL is Islamic or not.
He’s just saying some nice words that will make some people happier and more cooperative, and at no cost to anyone.
Exactly. Obama’s the head of state. He has to keep diplomacy in mind when speaking. He can’t just spit fire for the angriest 25% of the electorate.
This is Great Debates.
Do not accuse other posters of lying in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
It would seem apparent to me that when a group commits atrocities in the name of Mohammed they are “Islamic” in some form or fashion.
If the left wants to call Timothy McVeigh a “Christian,” despite the fact that he did not kill in the name of Jesus, they can in no way suggest ISIL is not Islamic. One is clearly acting on behalf of religious motivation and yet they get a secular free pass.
Again, the hypocrisy of the left on the issue of radical Islam is so glaring it blinds those with half a sense of reason.
“The left” ain’t here, man. There’s just us.
So, is the LRA a Christian organization?
Who do you see doing that?
It might be, if you had some illustrative examples to offer us.
They kill in the name of Jesus, so yes.
The President’s speech last night did not reflect a relatively liberal war strategy?
No boots on the ground, building coalition, calling an Islamic army not Islamic, etc…
Would anyone expect such a speech from Bush Jr?