In Biblical times, there was a common belief that a person's essence was set forth in his or her name. Today, that belief has fallen by the wayside for the most part, but names still are an important, indeed and essential part of one's identity. It's worth keeping that in mind when considering President Obama's comments from earlier today. Obama made a passionate defense of his practice of not calling the terrorists "radical Islamic terrorists" but rather describing them as "violent extremists." Obama used his usual rhetorical devices. First, he announced that were he to say radical Islamic terrorists it would not win the fight against ISIS as some contend. Of course, no one contends that using the correct name for the terrorists would win the war against them. Obama just made up that claim so that he could explain why the claim made no sense. Second, Obama asked what difference using the name would make; none of the (unnamed) experts think it would change anything. Once again, Obama failed to consider the opposite question: how would it hurt to use the term?
Rather than parsing Obama's speech, however, it is perhaps better to look at the oft-cited reason given by the administration for not uttering the words "radical Islamic terrorism". Supposedly, use of that phrase would insult Moslems around the world and lead them to decide to join ISIS. It would, we are told, have Moslems decide that the USA was at war with their religion and would cause them to join the fight against the USA. Think about that for a moment. American planes have dropped bombs for nearly two years in Iraq and Syria on positions held by ISIS. The campaign is lackadaisical, but it is still a program in which American planes are bombing Moslem cities and towns and killing Moslem men and women. Apparently, Obama believes that such actions by the USA do not convey the idea that America is at war with Moslems. Our forces can kill scores of Moslems, but for the average potential recruit watching this on his TV screen, it means nothing. We Obama, however, to call the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS) "Islamic", it would be too much for these people. Potential recruits who do nothing when their fellow Moslems are killed by American bombs will rush to join up to the fight if Obama mentions that the dead and their compatriots are "Islamic".
The who idea that Obama is promoting in this regard is just to ridiculous to continue discussing it seriously.
Rather than parsing Obama's speech, however, it is perhaps better to look at the oft-cited reason given by the administration for not uttering the words "radical Islamic terrorism". Supposedly, use of that phrase would insult Moslems around the world and lead them to decide to join ISIS. It would, we are told, have Moslems decide that the USA was at war with their religion and would cause them to join the fight against the USA. Think about that for a moment. American planes have dropped bombs for nearly two years in Iraq and Syria on positions held by ISIS. The campaign is lackadaisical, but it is still a program in which American planes are bombing Moslem cities and towns and killing Moslem men and women. Apparently, Obama believes that such actions by the USA do not convey the idea that America is at war with Moslems. Our forces can kill scores of Moslems, but for the average potential recruit watching this on his TV screen, it means nothing. We Obama, however, to call the self-styled Islamic State (ISIS) "Islamic", it would be too much for these people. Potential recruits who do nothing when their fellow Moslems are killed by American bombs will rush to join up to the fight if Obama mentions that the dead and their compatriots are "Islamic".
The who idea that Obama is promoting in this regard is just to ridiculous to continue discussing it seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment