DescentBB

Obama enforces censoring the truth- even if it's an ally telling it...

When French President Francois Hollande met with President Barack Obama at the White House on Thursday to share ideas on how the two countries can fight Islamist terrorism, it probably didn't occur to him that saying the words "Islamist terrorism" would be a problem. But in the Obama White House, putting the word "Islamist" (or Islamic) next to the word "terrorism" is a faux pas worthy of being struck from the record...

...Via the Federalist:

While the official transcript available on the White House web page includes Hollande’s use of the phrase “Islamist terrorism,” the White House video of the remarks muted the audio during that portion of Hollande’s remarks. The audio of the French-to-English interpreter stops right before Hollande characterizes “Islamist terrorism” as the root of terrorism in Syria and Iraq.
“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq,” Hollande told Obama, according to the transcript of the exchange provided by the White House. “We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition.”

[youtube]m4Q_dbP4BbU[/youtube]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/04/01 ... terrorism/

Here is the thing, Islamic terrorism is a special brand of trouble, but it's not the only brand and not even the largest type of terrorist threat in the West. Islamic terrorism affects mostly Islamic countries. When you disassociate "Islamic" from terrorism you actually do a good service. All terrorism is bad. Islamic terrorism is simply a subset of terrorism. Continually attaching Islamic to the word terrorism is unnecessarily disrespectful to Western Muslims. I know you lack critical thinking skills (as has been displayed here all too often), but the media heavily exaggerates the threat of Islamic terrorism in the United States. In France it's a little different, but we can't have French officials speak for Americans.

vision wrote:Here is the thing, Islamic terrorism is a special brand of trouble, but it's not the only brand and not even the largest type of terrorist threat in the West. Islamic terrorism affects mostly Islamic countries. When you disassociate "Islamic" from terrorism you actually do a good service. All terrorism is bad. Islamic terrorism is simply a subset of terrorism. Continually attaching Islamic to the word terrorism is unnecessarily disrespectful to Western Muslims. I know you lack critical thinking skills (as has been displayed here all too often), but the media heavily exaggerates the threat of Islamic terrorism in the United States. In France it's a little different, but we can't have French officials speak for Americans.

In a perverse way, you are right. This is not 'terrorism' in the eyes of muslims that support violence against the infidel. It is merely holy war. Jihad that must be waged to cleanse the way for god. You are part of 'dar al-harb.' The house of war.

Except vision, he was speaking of a subset of terrorism, note he did mention two Muslim countries, where this was the root.

But I do agree with you in principle, but I also have some money burning a hole in my pocket, that says you never objected to the usage of the term “right wing terrorism” or perhaps “home grown terrorism”.

And yes...those are also subsets.

......

Also let me add…

If you are at a conference about combating a specific brand of terrorism, but you are not allowed to name that brand, the conference might seem more like a comedy routine, or at the very least disingenuous.

Changing islamic terrorism to violent terrorism as a PR play doesn't raise my hackles. I don't see this particular newspeak as detrimental. I don't know how effective it will ultimately be, but it's not like our national security apparatus no longer perceives the fundamentalist islam/terrorism link.

What I find more detrimental is claiming Iraq and Syria are the root of islamic terrorism.

Spidey wrote:Except vision, he was speaking of a subset of terrorism, note he did mention two Muslim countries, where this was the root.

Is that in the video? I admit I did not watch the video. Everything TB posts is complete garbage anyway. Also, the terms "home grown" and "right-wing" don't identify a protected class. Context, context, context.

I didn’t watch the video either vision, I’m pretty much done with clicking on all of these links.

I can only assume what TB posted is factual, and go from there, if it proves to be wrong, then you can disregard what I said.

……..

“What I find more detrimental is claiming Iraq and Syria are the root of islamic terrorism.”

That’s not what the text says…read it again.

Spidey wrote:That’s not what the text says…read it again.

“But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq...” vs "Iraq and Syria are the root of Islamic terrorism."

Meh, close enough for my point. I wouldn't argue that countries with war and strife will be breeding grounds for guerrilla warfare, which is what terrorism is. But if you want to add the "Islamic" in front of the terrorism, Iraq and Syria are both downstream from Saudi Arabia. This isn't to exclude fanatical Shia, but Al Qaida and ISIS have their roots in the brand of fundamentalist Islam Saudi Arabia finances and espouses.

Agreed.

Oh yea vision, I meant to ask you…

How do you define a “protected class” in this context?

I’m serious, because I haven’t got a clue.*

* I do know what a protected class is... in the context of discrimination, but not in context of identifying a terrorist group.

.............

Ok Vander, after reading that text again, I can see where you were coming from, yea, when I read it the first time I actually missed the sentence after…” The audio of the French-to-English interpreter stops right before Hollande characterizes “Islamist terrorism” as the root of terrorism in Syria and Iraq.”

My Bad

Spidey wrote:How do you define a “protected class” in this context?

What goes on in France is not our problem. In the US we make an effort not to discriminate. It should be obvious, semantically, why we would prefer to address a whole problem and not a sub-set of it. Focusing on increasingly smaller sub-sets of people does nothing but feed prejudice. Here is an example:

Homicide
Homicide committed by US citizens
Homicide committed by black US citizens

At the national level we should address homicide committed by US citizens (or higher). Can you see how unproductive it would be to continually address all homicide as "black homicide?" Speaking at the national level, saying home-grown terrorism is appropriate. Saying right-wing terrorism is less Ok, but there are so many right-wing persons in the US it's hard to see how this will contribute to damaging prejudice. Now, if that right-wing terrorism began to directly affect everyone at a national level, then yes there is a contextual reason for saying as much. But Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is not a problem in the US and continually labeling all terrorism as Islamic is harmful to the ~1% of Muslims in the US.

vision wrote:Now, if that right-wing terrorism began to directly affect everyone at a national level, then yes there is a contextual reason for saying as much. But Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is not a problem in the US and continually labeling all terrorism as Islamic is harmful to the ~1% of Muslims in the US.

The phrase 'islamic terrorism' is a western construct. It is otherwise known as 'jihad' by the takfiri "warriors" of islam.

Still, islamic terrorism is a worldwide occurrence so it is useful to label it as such when it reaches our shores. We fight it in this context rather than seeing it as a war against us (the infidels or 'kafir.')

I’m sorry vision, but there is no way all terrorism is being referred to as Islamic Terrorism, and there is no way you can call a conference to combat all terrorism, because the causes and solutions are unique to each type.

For example the way to combat ISIS would be a bit of overkill to address…let’s say, eco-terrorism.

I also have to note here, the exact term used was...“Islamist terrorism” which is a subset of Islam, and not an indictment of all Islam.

Islam in action:

Muslims march down a German street chanting, “With Allah’s help, we shall conquer you!”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04 ... uer-video/

I took a little time to do some research and it appears this is a non-story by mostly right-wing websites.

First off, this was a Nuclear Summit, not a conference on terrorism. I read transcripts of the other speakers and, while there is a component addressing terrorism, the conference is about nuclear safety and it involves discussions about sanctions on enemies and reduction/security from allies.

If you read the actual transcript of the remarks there seems to be some inconsistencies. I looks like a matter of Hollande misspeaking then trying to correct his statement mid-sentence. Hollande first talks about a global threat, talks about terrorists and ISIS independently, then talks about Syria and Iraq specifically. The statement in question is:

"But we're also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq."

Of course, this statement makes no sense and is sloppy for sure. To be less confusing it should simply say "...we're also well aware the Islamist terrorism in Syria and in Iraq." instead of the objectively false statement that the roots of terrorism (Islamist or not) is in Syria and Iraq. The censoring may have been an equally sloppy attempt to make Hollande sound less stupid. Either way, nothing to see. Move along.

So the start of the death of PC is nothing to see?

vision wrote:I took a little time to do some research and it appears this is a non-story by mostly right-wing websites.

shock sums up my reaction.

woodchip wrote:So the start of the death of PC is nothing to see?

keep slobbering.......


"death of PC"......

I guess slick you just can't resist making stupid replies. In the spirit of keeping the thread open I won't reply in kind.

vision wrote:I took a little time to do some research and it appears this is a non-story by mostly right-wing websites.

First off, this was a Nuclear Summit, not a conference on terrorism.

It figures...

This thread should be closed because it’s based on a lie.

callmeslick wrote:

vision wrote:I took a little time to do some research and it appears this is a non-story by mostly right-wing websites.

shock sums up my reaction.

Your shock that all vision can claim is right wing websites.? Of course we have no proof that what he refers to is in fact false.

Well, there is no reason to expect that Islamist Terrorism is not going to come up at a summit to discuss keeping the lid on nuclear material.

The problem is the lie describing what the conference was about in the first place, and how that lie is used to dismiss the criticism raised, when in fact the lie was not needed to make the point in the first place.