Media note Obama did not say "terrorism," but don't discuss why
SUMMARY: Numerous media figures followed a Politico article in noting that President Obama did not use the words "terror," "terrorism," "terrorist," or "war on terror" during his speech at Cairo University, suggesting the omission was notable, but did not discuss possible reasons why Obama chose other words.
Reporting on President Obama's June 4 address at Cairo University, the Politico's Josh Gerstein wrote on June 4 that Obama "managed never to utter the one word that comes to mind most often when many Americans think about Islam: terrorism." Subsequently, numerous media figures noted that Obama did not use the words "terror," "terrorism," "terrorist," or "war on terror" during the speech -- without raising the question of why Obama used other language in his lengthy discussion of those who "engage in violence against civilians." For instance, Fox News anchor Bret Baier stated on June 4 that the speech "lasted a little over 55 minutes" and "was 6,000 words." He added: "Words that you did not hear in the speech -- terror, terrorist, or terrorism -- although the president did talk about the 9-11 attacks and a lot of other topics." Baier did not discuss or report possible reasons for Obama's word choice.
By contrast, in reporting that Obama did not use the words "terror" or its variants, The New York Times' Jeff Zeleny and Alan Cowell wrote on June 4: "That was a departure from the language used by the Bush administration, but one that some Middle East experts suggested reflected a belief by the new administration that overuse had made the words inflammatory." In a separate June 4 article on regional reactions to the speech, the Times' Michael Slackman reported that Obama's speech "was also embraced for what it did not do: use the word terrorism, broadly seen here as shorthand for an attack on Islam."
Similarly, during the June 4 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, referring to why Obama chose not to use the words "terror," or "terrorism" in his speech, chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour stated, "I don't know what goes on in his head. But I certainly know what the people in the Islamic world say. In all those countries which I visited, where there are wars or not, they are fed up with being completely and monolithically associated with terror. Perhaps that was what was going through the president's mind when he chose not to use that word."
In a June 5 article, the Los Angeles Times' Christi Parsons and Jeffrey Fleishman reported that the "invasion of Iraq and President Bush's declaration of a 'war on terror' angered Muslims, many of whom believed Washington was using its military power to control the Middle East and its oil." They further reported: "Obama did not use the word 'terrorism,' which many Muslims associate with the U.S. drive for military action in the Muslim world."
In his speech, Obama addressed at length the issue of "violent extremism":
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
Nonetheless, several media figures and outlets focused on Obama not using the words "terror" or its variants but did not discuss why Obama instead used the term "violent extremism," including:
- The Politico's Mike Allen: In a June 4 article, Allen wrote: "Obama spoke bluntly of some of the 'sources of tension' between the cultures, including head scarves and the role of women, but did not include the word 'terrorism' or its variants."
- WorldNetDaily.com Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein: In a June 4 article headlined "Obama minimized terror, distorted issues," Klein wrote: "The U.S. president did not once use the word 'terrorism.' "
- Fox News America's Newsroom co-host Megyn Kelly: On the June 4 edition of the program, Kelly stated that "what [Obama] did not talk a lot about was terror." Kelly later added, "So he goes out -- this is a big speech, 3,000 people in attendance, but millions, if not more, watching around the world, and not one mention of terror, the war on terror, or terrorism." During the segment, Fox News aired on-screen text reading: "Why Didn't Pres Obama Use The Word 'Terror' In Cairo Speech?":

- Fox News host Sean Hannity: During the June 4 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity stated, "[I]n his remarks, Mr. Obama refused to use these words -- 'terror,' 'terrorism,' 'terrorist' -- or even that term, 'manmade disasters.' But he repeatedly quoted the Quran and even accused Americans of overreacting to the 9-11 terror attacks." Additionally, on his radio show the same day, Hannity said, "By the way, 'terror,' 'terrorism,' 'terrorist' -- how many times do you think those words were mentioned in the speech? It wasn't. Not even 'manmade disasters' -- that wasn't even mentioned. 'Me': six; 'my': seven; 'I': 50; 'Christians': six; 'Muslim': 39. He quoted the Quran far more often than he did the Bible."
- CNN's Lou Dobbs: During the June 4 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs stated: "In a speech in Cairo, President Obama called for democracy and human rights in the Muslim world and a new alliance against what he called, 'violent extremists.' Not once did President Obama use the phrase, 'radical Islamist terrorists,' or 'terrorists.' "
- The Washington Times: In a June 5 "analysis" headlined "President's words worry Israel's backers," the Times asserted that "[a]lthough Mr. Obama called for Palestinians and other Muslims to end violence, he never used the word 'terror' or 'terrorism' to refer to their violent acts."
- Fox News Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy: During the June 5 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy stated that Obama "had a 6,000-word speech, and yet, of those 6,000 words, not once did he use the word 'terrorist,' 'terrorism,' or 'terror,' 'war on terror' or any of that stuff." During the program, on-screen text read: "President's Word Play: Obama Avoided Using 'Terror' In Speech"; "Terror Term Dropped: Doesn't Appear Once In 6,000 Word Speech"; and "What Obama Didn't Say: Pres Ditches Words 'Terror,' 'Terrorism' ":



From Allen's June 4 Politico article:
The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment. Obama included blunt talk about the United States, Israel, Iraq, his predecessor and al Qaeda.
"I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11," he said, speaking before a red curtain and six pairs of U.S. and Egyptian flags. "But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day."
[...]
Conservative critics seized on a passage in which he said: "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared."
However, Obama spoke bluntly of some of the "sources of tension" between the cultures, including head scarves and the role of women, but did not include the word "terrorism" or its variants.
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," he said. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.:"
From Gerstein's June 4 Politico article:
In a nearly 6,000-word address Thursday extending an olive branch to the Muslim world, President Barack Obama managed never to utter the one word that comes to mind most often when many Americans think about Islam: terrorism.
While both the White House and the Pentagon denied earlier this year that the Obama administration had issued orders to stamp out the phrase "war on terror," the president's decision to rely on the word "extremism" throughout his high-profile speech made clear his desire to execute a rhetorical shift.
More than that, Obama sought to decouple Islam entirely from those who perpetrate violence.
"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace," Obama said.
It's just one aspect of his speech that seems sure to draw fire from conservatives, and particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. Even some in Obama's own party -- already critical of his firmer line against Israel - seem sure to resist some of his harsher language, including comparing the "intolerable" plight of the Palestinians to African slaves in the United States.
[...]
In comments that will also be portrayed as an apology, Obama told the Cairo audience that the U.S. overreacted to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals," he said. "I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Well, the president talked a lot in his speech today about reaching out to Muslims. What he did not talk a lot about was terror. Bill Sammon is Fox News vice president of news and our managing editor down here in the Washington bureau. He joins me live on set. Hi, Bill.
SAMMON: Hey, Megyn. Good to have you here in person.
KELLY: It's a pleasure to be here. And a lot of people don't know -- I have mentioned this before on the air -- but a lot of people don't know that if it weren't for Bill Sammon, I would not be working at Fox News.
SAMMON: I single-handedly recruited you.
KELLY: You did. He --
SAMMON: And I never tire of telling the bosses that, because that gets me in good with them.
KELLY: And he told me, he said if it works out well, I'm going to take all the credit, and if you stink, I'll act like I never knew you.
SAMMON: No blame. No blame here.
KELLY: All right, so, getting back to President Obama. So he goes out -- this is a big speech, 3,000 people in attendance, but millions, if not more, watching around the world, and not one mention of terror, the war on terror, or terrorism.
SAMMON: Yeah.
KELLY: What do you make of it?
SAMMON: Well, I make of it that he has taken us off a war footing as a nation. And it's now clear -- when you give a 6,000-plus word speech to the Muslim world and you don't mention terror, terrorist, or terrorism, you know, that's not an accident.
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: President Obama today said in a speech directed at the world's 1.3 billion Muslims that the cycle of suspicion and discord with the U.S. must end. The address from Cairo, Egypt, featured references to both the 9-11 attacks, and the war in Iraq, but did not use the words "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism."
White House correspondent Wendell Goler is traveling with the president and reports from Cairo.
[...]
GOLER: Those acts, enhanced interrogations, and the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay were supported by many, if not most Americans, though the president says ending them deprives Al Qaeda of recruiting tools. Although he didn't use the word "terrorism," the president noted Islamic extremists have killed more Muslims than anyone else and he called on believers to fight them.
[...]
BAIER: The White House billed this speech as a major address to the Muslims of the world. It lasted a little over 55 minutes, was 6,000 words. Words that you did not hear in the speech -- terror, terrorist, or terrorism -- although the president did talk about the 9-11 attacks and a lot of other topics.
From Klein's June 4 WorldNetDaily commentary:
Firstly, he pointed to "violent extremism in all of its forms." He vowed "America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security."
"Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace," Obama declared.
The U.S. president did not once use the word "terrorism."
From the June 4 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: By the way, "terror," "terrorism," "terrorist" -- how many times do you think those words were mentioned in the speech? It wasn't. Not even "manmade disasters" -- that wasn't even mentioned. "Me": six; "my": seven; "I": 50; "Christians": six; "Muslim": 39. He quoted the Quran far more often than he did the Bible. Now, look, why are you saying this, Hannity? What does that mean?
Well, I'm going to give you a full analysis of this. The first thing that stuck in my mind, watching this at 6 a.m. this morning -- and by the way, it's not the best way to wake up and start your day -- is, you know, Obama speaks about the tension that has existed between the West and the Muslim world. And he said in essence that both sides are to blame. But when it came to the West, he mentioned colonialism.
Now, Muslim majority countries, you know -- and he talks about how they were treated poorly in the Cold War and the fact that modern society, globalization has led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam -- you know, in other words, Apology Tour 2.0.
From the June 4 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: We begin tonight with the president's appeal for a new beginning with Muslims. In a speech in Cairo, President Obama called for democracy and human rights in the Muslim world and a new alliance against what he called "violent extremists." Not once did President Obama use the phrase "radical Islamist terrorists" or "terrorists."
President Obama also drew a parallel between the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, and Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The president said we will be blind to the truth, as he put it, if we see the Arab-Israeli conflict from only one side. President Obama also appeared to some to apologize for U.S. policy in the Muslim world.
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And that is our headline tonight: Blaming America first. Now in his remarks, Mr. Obama refused to use these words -- "terror," "terrorism," "terrorist" -- or even that term "manmade disasters." But he repeatedly quoted the Quran and even accused Americans of overreacting to the 9-11 terror attacks. He went on to imply to the foreign audience in Cairo that the U.S. is a nation that tortures.
OBAMA [video clip]: I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantánamo Bay closed by early next year.
HANNITY: He also decided to give 9-11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage.
OBAMA [video clip]: I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9-11.
HANNTIY: And throughout the speech, Mr. Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth.
[...]
HANNITY: The word "terror" didn't come up. "Terrorism" didn't come up. "Terrorist" didn't come up. "Manmade disaster" didn't come up. Don't you think that that would be -- those would be vital terms to use in a speech like this?
NEWT GINGRICH (Fox News political contributor): Well, I think you captured part of what's going on here, which is you have a man who's in considerable conflict with himself. On the one hand, he's trying to reach out to the Muslim world and trying to open up a new dialogue. On the other hand, he just can't help himself in blaming America first and saying things about America.
From the June 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Yesterday, we covered it live right here on Fox & Friends. President Obama was at Cairo University, he had a 6,000-word speech, and yet, of those 6,000 words, not once did he use the word "terrorist," "terrorism," or "terror," "war on terror" or any of that stuff. Now we've seen a rhetorical shift over the last couple of months --
KILMEADE: He never even said Terry.
DOOCY: I know. What's going on here?
KARL ROVE (Fox News contributor): Well, I'll tell you what was even more troubling than that is he did say the word "extremism." He did make it clear that we would fight against those who attacked America on 9-11. He did use the word Al Qaeda.
But in the section of the speech devoted to the war on terror, he had eight paragraphs mostly critical of the United States, and one paragraph in which he called upon the Muslim world to confront extremism that emerged from within.
From the June 5 Washington Times analysis:
Mr. Obama repeated his insistence that Israel stop adding to Jewish settlements in territory controlled by Arabs before 1967 -- a break with the policies of the George W. Bush administration, which approved thickening of existing settlements. Although Mr. Obama called for Palestinians and other Muslims to end violence, he never used the word "terror" or "terrorism" to refer to their violent acts.
From the June 4 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
ANDERSON COOPER (host): Let's talk about some of the specifics. Christiane, you mentioned that he did not use the word "terror." That's being picked up by a lot of people, particularly conservatives very critical of the president, saying, "How can you have a 55-minute speech to the Muslim world and not use the word 'terror,' 'terrorism'?"
AMANPOUR: Well, he chose not to do that. He chose -- and he has -- his policy has been not to use this term "war on terror." And he's -- on the other hand, he did say that they would fight extremists. He -- the clip that we just played talked about how there are still those militants and extremists, and the United States is still engaged against them.
I didn't write his speech. I don't know what goes on in his head. But I certainly know what the people in the Islamic world say. In all those countries which I visited, where there are wars or not, they are fed up with being completely and monolithically associated with terror.
Perhaps that was what was going through the president's mind when he chose not to use that word.















Ultra-cons are only interested in ultimate power and NO COMPROMISE.
So even as simple a task as finding "missing" words in a speech is too difficult for them.
It was (theoretically) invented by Republicans. Of course it's going to be inaccurate.
Or that Hasselback knows how to turn on a computer.
Why the hell are there still conservative words coming out of my TV? That philosophy killed itself off at the tea parties. Free speech is for street corners. National television is for opinions that have a chance at not being wrong.
The word in bold definitely suggests that you're maligning liberals.
Fundamentals of islam are charity, prayer, that God is the only God and maximum effort (against evil [Jihad]). Killing is not a fundamental and Mohammed preached against forced conversion.
In any case Bush is therefore not responsible as he is not a radical moslem
The use of the words "war on terror" and "terrorists" were deliberately designed to instill fear in the gullible. Under these words, Bushco had cover for their looting of the tax payer and advancement of a police state.
Religious fundamentalism, of ALL kinds, IS a conservative concept. You bought it, you own it.
So in a 55-minute speech, it's somehow relevant that Obama referred to himself 63 times? It's not a speech about the migratory patterns of hummingbirds. His plans are key to the message here. How's he supposed to talk about what he's done and what he's going to do without saying "I"?
And when you're addressing the Muslim world, why on earth would you quote the Bible nearly as much as the Qu'ran? The very concept of reaching out to someone with a different perspective seems completely out of Hannity's grasp.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Obama's view of his duty:
"And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people."
If he means what he says, his view of his job is radically different from the Constitution's view of his job. Of course, it is quite possible that his words don't mean anything.
It's obviously aimed at those who don't understand the protections that the Constitution provides, or are unable to extrapolate that defending the Constitution naturally translates to protecting the American people.
I didn't call it "a solemn duty." (Edross)
heh heh. You're fun.
But Col.; as to your critique: I think it is significant that Obama sees his job differently than the language of the Constitution allows. I would agree with "Loonz" below who offered the same critique of Bush et al. (Though I would challenge his assertion of suspension of 'Habeas Corpus.' That only applies to citizens.)
It is manifestly not the President's task to protect American lives. It is the President's job to protect the Constitution, which sometimes means putting American lives at risk. To make the protection of Americans his "first duty" is to invite unconstitutional acts in the name of an unconstitutional goal. (Rotten root, rotten fruit.)
I don't know that Bush said his first duty was protection of American lives. He may have. Surely it is a legitimate extrapolation to say that a goal of the Presidency is to protect the lives of Americans. But that is a far cry from saying it is the "first duty" of the President. So, that's my concern.
P.S. I didn't hear that particular critique of his speech anywhere, I was just reading what MMFA has quoted and saw it. Anyone who cares for the Constitution should be concerned that the President know what his duty is, and that he aim to fulfill that duty, not some derived (and lesser) goal. But, in this quote you have a President, either ignorantly or knowingly, misstating his own duty. Take your pick.
The Constitution applies to persons, not just citizens.
That's exactly what Bush and the republicans did when they had power.
The president's job is to protect and defend the Constitution and enforce laws. Bush was inept in both instances. The only reason why Obama has adopted that rhetoric is he doesn't want to appear weak (republicans still have a slight edge on national security issues). The far right would go batsh!t crazy if he said protecting America was not his top priority.
The first affirmation of the President is to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States". That's why it comes first. In other words, not last. Like "and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Which comes last.
Anyhoo, the President has two jobs (aka "duties"):
1) Chief executive of the federal government and
(2) Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
So his first "duty", at least sequentially, is to run the gummint, and his second "duty" is to defend the population. "Protecting the Constitution" runs a dismal fourth.
Now all of a sudden the knuckledraggers have discovered parsing?
Welcome to our world and enjoy the stay.
Gee, and I wonder why ultra-cons like Bush are hated in the Muslim world????
From what I hear from the Jihadist side of Islam, Obama isn't very popular, just like Bush.
To call Egypt "the heart" of the Muslim world is historically ignorant. If there is a 'heart' of the Arab world, it would probably be Saudi Arabia, not Egypt. Most Egyptians would rather not be called 'Arabs.' And most radical Muslims consider the Egyptian government to be apostate. The majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not very exercised about the destruction of Israel, including the Egyptians.
The Muslim religion recognizes the first five books of the Bible - the Pentateuch, as holy writ. Quotations from the Pentateuch could have been appropriate and non-controversial. But, I guess you'd have to know something about the Bible to use it, or else be a brain surgeon, huh?
Egypt isn't 'Arab,' because Arab is an ethnic designation. And the Egyptians (like a majority of Muslims world-wide) aren't clamoring for the destruction of Israel.
It's probably a good thing that the Jihadists hate Obama with the same fervor they hated Bush - the only way to placate their hatred would be to surrender.
See, Edross, it's silly comments like that that really hurt your chances of being taken seriously by anybody not sporting teabags on their heads. These are groups at opposite ends of the spectrum, whose disagreements with Bush are probably for very different reasons.
Both groups are fascist. That's their primary similarity.
This kind of thing is not hard to find: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118940/Approval-Leadership-Arab-Countries.aspx
BTW, as soon as you start throwing around "Islamofascists", I turned off. You obviously read too much George Will, Charles Krauthammer & Glenn Beck, dude!
The fact that the hard-liners want to push aggresive tactics keeps the misery going.
The radical extremists of Islam have little or nothing in common with the conservatives of the U.S. "According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews."
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
"You guys (Neocons and the Arab extremists) are trying to destroy each other..." That quote betrays a moral equivalence that is unsustainable. How many terrorist actions against Muslims has the U.S. perpetuated? Even the most aggressive of the Neo-Cons (and I'm not one), pales in comparison to Islamic Jihad.
Excluding suppression of religion, the above describes American conservative.
The Neocons want the same thing but their rhetoric is a little softer. They want the world to bend to their will. If not, they will use force.
The Neocons ended up killing countless Iraqis.
Your simplistic nonsense about the left wanting more government intrusion is our lives is also ludicrous. The RIGHT wants the government in our bedrooms. The RIGHT wants the government to say who can and cant be married. What a woman can do with her body. You really are sad and fall for the dumbest propaganda imaginable
who are these radical leftist fascists? (Don't put too much work into your answer, you're just providing laughs at this point. You can just use something from one of your video games if it's easier)
That, my friend, is fascism. A government based upon freedom does not own businesses. It doesn't control businesses; these acts are the substance of fascism.
Next comes socialized medicine. I hope you don't find it funny, because it is tragic.
The United States of America.
He just gets funnier with every post.
A fool rages or laughs, but learns nothing.
Some of you seem to think that Fascists come with jackboots and Heil Hitler salutes.
In the U.S. it looks like fascism comes with bailouts and stimulus packages. But whatever face fascism dons, it is antithetical to freedom. The adoption of even benign fascism will make our government the enemy of the people. We will rue the day we traded our freedom for security and stability. A tragedy indeed.
You are getting more pompous and pretentious in your writing,but not much in the substance department. Look up "begging the question", that's the logical blunder you're making here.
That's why you're laughed at, not because you're deliberately playing a jester. You're the jester and the idiot, you just haven't realized it yet.
Your post won't allow me to reply, so I'm going here instead. The men on the radio don't tell me anything.
What does it look like to you?
National socialism is fascism. We are nationalizing the auto industry - at least the American side of it. We are talking about socializing medicine, the financial industry is under government control, not just oversight.
If it's not fascism, what do you call it?
reference.com has an article on fascism which cites four major characteristics for that ideology: statism; social Darwinism; elitism and classism (idenity politics in the U.S.). European fascists were 'right wing' from International Communists, but in the United States, 'right or right-wing' signifies someone who is in favor of limited government and individual accountability, not national socialism as opposed to international socialism. Both fascists and communists are statists; that is, the good of the state supercedes the good of the individual. Our Liberal/Progressive 'leftists' in the U.S. are statists, whence their visceral reaction to Reagan's quote: "Government is not a solution to our problem, Government is the problem."
Our left wing is also elitist, and social Darwinians. The only thing lacking is a charismatic despot to be the dictator.
And in just an aside; perhaps you haven't noticed, but prior to the (probably illegal) use of TARP funds by the Obama Administration, the U.S. Government has not been 'the bank.' The U.S. government now owns 60% of GM stock. Who are the stockholders that will get paid back? Why, if it isn't nationalized, did the Obama admin. have to assure that they 'would not be involved' in day-to-day decisions of the company?
"Why, if it isn't nationalized, did the Obama admin. have to assure that they 'would not be involved' in day-to-day decisions of the company?"
Because people like you keep saying that it's nationalized. If they didn't say that, wouldn't you be saying "how do we know they're not making day-to-day decisions"? If not, why not?
Not necessarily, but all statists will disagree with it.
How would GM look different if it were nationalized? The U.S. government now owns 60% of the common stock of GM - the controlling interest in the company. The government - not the stockholders - forced the CEO of GM to resign. The government controls the leadership and the salaries. What more would need to be done? GM is 'de facto' nationalized.
The government is forcing banks that took TARP money under the control of a 'Pay Czar.' There is talk that they will make that control industry wide. That is fascism in practice, if not in name.
That's what you said. If it's possible that someone can disagree with Reagan and not be a statist, then the argument that all statists would disagree with it is meaningless. You said that liberals were statists because they disagreed with Reagan.
"The government - not the stockholders - forced the CEO of GM to resign."
No, they didn't. It was a condition of assistance. If they didn't want the assistance, they could have kept their CEO. I notice you didn't answer the questions about your reasoning in your previous post.
Solon, did your mother ever say to you..."If all your friends were to jump off a bridge, would you jump off too?"
The best health care system in the world is presently available to the people of this country, even with the present levels of governmental interference. All the government would do is screw it up - see Canada or England. Why should we mimic them? We are doing a much better job than they are!
It cost the most. That seems to be the only metric we lead in. It's like the people who buy a Mercedes precisely because it costs 50K+. Our health care system fails on just about every health metric, all for a greater price tag.
It would be like the guy paying 50K+ for a Mercedes and have it drive like Yugo.
People wait months to get simple surgeries in England. They are having trouble keeping doctors in the system, and they are rationing certain kinds of surgeries. Great system.
Name a better one.
You can insist fascism is a 'right wing' political philosophy all you want, but you are historically inaccurate. I "know you WISH it were true but wishing wont (sic) make it so.
Yeah, since the Doughy Pantload invented a nes, improved, bizarro-world political paradigm, "history" now dates back about a year. All of us subject to the arcane method of learning - education, observation, experience - are now "inaccurate"
Welp, my schools didn't offer a guaranteee, so now it's all caveat emptor and stuff.
And speaking of caveat emptor, hope no one here has invested in an Oxford Dictionary, 'cause you clearly got scrooood:
Ah no, not based on results, they don't. Gawd you sure talk alot but say nothing.
And suckers like edross keep voting for 'em.
And talk about 'looting the treasury!' The Obama administration has literally given the unions billions of dollars through this 'bailout' (purchase) of GM.
Let's try this:
"My point has been that the politics of American Progressives are indistinguishable from the politics of fascism. "
To which the proper response would be "D'oh!" or some variant thereof. Try aligning these two thoughts: "Progressives are authoritarian" and "the ACLU, the SPLC, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, the Peace Corps, public defenders and social workers are all commie symps."
Or this: "Progressives are elitists and racists" and "the vast majority of minorities, working poor, and other groups targeted with discrimination are all commie symps."
See your problem?
Methinks you need to read a little more and perhaps discover the fallacies in your feeble attempts at rational discussion. Then, you can come back and act like other cons who are better at masking their ignorance with sly parsing.
Since then, the Philadelphia speech on race, the Notre Dame commencement speech, and his tour de force in Cairo have demonstrated (at least to me) the validity of that assessment. The detractors who attack his use of language are fighting a losing battle.
Why do you think the general Middle Eastern population is going to react better to belligerence and violence than a call for cooperation? How does the former create less terrorists than the latter, or encourage people to shut it down on a local level? I'd really like to know how citing "Daniel Pearl" makes a case for that, in your mind.
You are not going to persuade Al-Qaeda operatives of anything without the power of force. That is all they recognize. The terrorists we battle in the Muslim world have established the rules - fight, surrender or die. We have seen how force, applied firmly but wisely, has transformed Iraq. It's Teddy Roosevelt's maxim all over again, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."
The vast majority of those who may be in sympathy with them are swayed by how the U.S. treats the middle east. Bush's swagger inflamed them.
Islamic terrorists are not insane, they are evil. Their hatred has nothing to do with our policies or who is in leadership - it is inspired by our existence. They hate Obama just as much as Bush, perhaps even more. We would be their enemy even if we didn't support the only democracy in the region (that would be Israel). The U.S. is the "Great Satan."
The terrorist threat is a systemic evil perpetuated by the Muslim/Arab countries of the region since 1948. Its primary target is Israel, but its ultimate goal is to make the world Islamic. As long as the terrorists can maintain their veneer of Islam, and have the financial support of the Arabs and the Persians, they will be a threat; and we are obliged to do battle with them. This is not a public relations problem.
Their terms are: fight, surrender or die. The United States did not provoke this battle. Time will tell if we have enough courage to win it, or if we will succumb to their evil.
We've been meddling with the Middle East since long before 9/11. We were never hated because we existed, like it was about jealousy or some insane, inexplicable hatred. The only reason for believing such a thing is that you don't anyone to take responsibility for the damage America has done to its own reputation. "Oh, we were already hated, so nothing Bush did made a difference". Pure partisan BS, every word of it.
That's precisely my point. Use the population to your advantage instead of creating an atmosphere of conflict. You can reach out to the general population and target the terrorists at the same time.
Why would "religious" thugs be afraid of anything? There's no fear of death there, obviously. And the point isn't that they'll be persuaded by anything, as Mary said. The point is that persuading the general population is going to weaken any support system that exists within the mainstream, while also discouraging recruitment.
The general population of the Middle East has little say in the what support systems exist or don't exist. You can be the most popular man on the planet, but if the Sauds don't like you, no one in Saudi Arabia will hear you. Same thing in Turkey, same in Syria. Certainly true in Iran. Persuasion is not one of the terrorists' terms of engagement. They are not going to go away until they are defeated. To think that Obama's speeches will make any difference (in the near term or in the long term) is Pollyannish.
And despite your binary mode of thinking, this is not a partisan issue. Administrations of both parties have engaged in Middle Eastern policy that creates conflict.
If you have some way of gathering all the terrorists into one place and then killing them, while making sure that new ones won't be created in the process, you let me know. More realistic is to believe that you'll always have some amount of it, but creating an atmosphere of cooperation between the governments and the people to eliminate the radical elements is the best way to minimize it. As I said before, you might still have some Daniel Pearls, but that doesn't mean that it's not the best way to go.
That is such poppycock. It is tripe. The people who hacked off Daniel Pearl's head are not going to be dissuaded by inspired words.
The Middle East in Jesus' time was not a nice place. But his inspired words have changed countless hearts and minds, despite the evil that has been done in his name since.
*Bumperstickers and buttons now available at dubyadubyadubya.fauxnoose.commie
Randy
Our God vs. yours. My religion vs. yours. Which side am I referring to? That is right, you do not know. It does matter to one and the other. Hence the problems. I may never know the day, when we all realized the shortcoming. Objectivity is a future foundation, and evolution is still a process.