Не знам зошто е тој страв од вистината?! Зошто на овие не им стиска да кажат дека да, исламот како религија и примерот даден од нивниот пророк е главниот инспиратор на исламскиот тероризам, туку се умилкуваат како некакви ку*вичиња. Измислуваат некакви нелогични, непотполни и недефинирани термини кои само го одложуваат решението.
Не барајте и не очекувајте разум таму каде што го нема. Муслиманските терористи веќе се чини ја постигнаа првата фаза од војната за исламот пропишана во Коранот - "да се всади страв во срцата на неверниците".
Јасно е дека никој не сака сеопшт религиозен конфликт, но зарем ова што се случува веќе не е тоа?
Obama’s ‘Crusades’ controversy highlights war on terrorism’s rhetorical minefield
New skirmish over language as White House summit on combating extremism gets underway
President Barack Obama this week hosts a White House summit on combating violent extremism, searching for strategies beyond just military action for countering terrorist groups like the so-called Islamic State or al-Qaida. The long-planned event arrives right as Obama is emerging from his latest skirmish with critics who say his reluctance to tie terrorists publicly and directly to Islam shows he does not understand the threat — and therefore cannot adequately respond.
At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, Obama suggested people get off of their “high horse,” reminding his audience that the West had its own history of “terrible deeds” in the name of religion, including the Crusades, the Inquisition and slavery. The remarks touched off a predictable firestorm, and his critics pounced.
“There’s a set of words, it’s almost as if they’re given a card — a do-not-speak card,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) said last week at the conservative Center for Security Policy think thank. “The words ‘
radical Islamic terrorism’ do not come out of the president’s mouth. The word ‘
jihad’ does not come out of the president’s mouth. And that is dangerous.”
The verbal onslaught is coming mostly, but not entirely, from Republicans.
“You look at the vast majority of terrorist attacks that are being committed around the world, there's one common element here and it is this radical Islamist ideology,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D.-Hawaii), an Iraq combat veteran, told CNN. “This war cannot be won, this enemy and threat cannot be defeated unless we understand what’s driving them, what is their ideology.
....................
Obama’s critics say his refusal to brand groups like the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) “
Muslim extremists” smacks of politically correct naiveté. His supporters say the president wants to avoid needlessly alienating Muslim allies and to deny extremists the ability to cloak violence in religion and win over fresh converts.
.........
Since 2012, Obama aides have argued that Osama bin Laden himself proved their case, citing documents seized in the raid on his hideout in Pakistan. CIA Director John Brennan, while still at the White House, pointed out that the al-Qaida mastermind said
his terrorist organization’s brand was hurting and that recruitment was down because “U.S. officials ‘have largely
stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,’” Brennan said.
“Bin Laden himself thought Obama’s language made it hard to recruit. You would think that this would sort of end the debate.” lorem ipsum– Former Obama National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor
The Islamic State does not appear to have the same recruiting shortfall, however. And its rise has rekindled a charged and, at times, nasty debate over the fraught language of terrorism. It is a battle almost as old as the 9/11 attacks themselves, one that has proved equally challenging to George W. Bush and Obama, who inherited the fight over the rhetoric of terrorism as surely as he inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
..................
From the outset, Bush tried to calibrate his rhetoric. Not quite 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, he had declared a “
war against terrorism.” But he took pains not to mention Islam. He hurried to The Islamic Center in Washington a few days later to hammer home the point that al-Qaida did not represent Islam — a message to an overseas audience of nervous Muslim allies and a domestic audience that, his aides worried, might include some willing to target American Muslims.
“Immediately after 9/11, we could not gauge the public reaction in the U.S., nor the reaction in the Muslim world when we began to go after [al-Qaida] and the Taliban,” Elliott Abrams, who advised Bush on Middle East policy, told Yahoo News. “It seemed important to separate those particular actors from all other Muslims, first to head off any possible anti-Muslim backlash at home and second to head off an anti-American backlash in the Islamic world.”
.................
The war in Afghanistan briefly carried the name “
Operation Infinite Justice,” which was quickly scrapped because many Muslims believe only God can dispense “infinite justice.” And “
Operation Iraq Liberation” lasted only a moment before officials realized that they did not want a war for OIL.
In 2006,
Bush started to refer publicly to “
Islamic radicals” or “
Islamic fascists,” a term that appears to have originated in a 1979 article in The Washington Post. In that piece, an anonymous State Department official in the Carter administration wondered whether the Iranian Revolution was sweeping an “
Islamist fascist” to power.
The message was poorly received in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia’s cabinet declared one week later that the expression was wrong because “
terrorism has no religion or nationality.” The “
Islamic fascist” comments dwindled to a trickle.
Shortly after taking office in January 2009, Obama started to play down the “
war on terrorism,” arguing that you don’t go to war against a tactic. In March of that year, The Washington Post reported that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had directed other agencies to abandon the term in favor of the bureaucrat-speak “
overseas contingency operations.” The report drew swift denials from the Pentagon, the OMB director, and an OMB spokesman who blamed an “
over-exuberant” mid-level bureaucrat.
At this month’s National Prayer Breakfast, Obama touched off controversy by invoking ties between Christianity and the Crusades, the Inquisition, slavery and Jim Crow. He added a layer of controversy by saying the Jews killed at the kosher supermarket in Paris were “
randomly” slain.
Conservatives denounced Obama’s reference to the Crusades as outdated and an inappropriate moral equivalence. The intensity of the response surprised the White House.
.........................
Obama seems to face an uphill fight. A Pew Research Center poll from September found that 50 percent of Americans say Islam is more likely than other religions
to encourage violence by its followers, the highest level since 2002. That was up from 43 percent in July and 38 percent in February, roughly tracking with the Islamic State’s military gains and its use of graphically violent videos, including some showing the beheadings of Americans.
“I think we went too far in claiming we knew what ‘
real’ Islam was and saying the actions of such terrorists ‘
have nothing to do with Islam,’” Abrams told Yahoo News. “And that’s the mistake Obama keeps making now, 14 years later.
A career national security official who advised Bush echoed that message, saying, “I am struck by the fact that both administrations spent so much time agonizing over what to call the enemy and not enough on what to call the allies in the region.”...........
