President Obama asked”What changes if we use the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism”? Speaking from the bully pulpit he knew there would not be an answer. The truth is there is an answer and it should be made clear to this President who thinks only his words matter. First of all you would never defeat a disease if you simply didn’t identify exactly what it is and therefore what is necessary to combat it. You couldn’t defeat a political opponent if you knew nothing about him or called him by a name other than his own. You couldn’t defeat the Nazis if you clumped them into a group of “aggressors” and didn’t distinguish who they were and who their leader was.
There is only one reason why this President gets so bent out of shape when he is asked to call out Islamic terrorism. That reason speaks to this obvious sympathy for Islam. Why else would a person that sees 49 of his fellow citizens that he is charged with protecting get slaughtered by a terrorist who has Islamic leanings try to apologize or sympathize with Islam? It doesn’t take a person versed in the meaning of words to decipher the intent and the motivation. Previous American Presidents would have denounced Islam ( with the possible exception George Bush ) as a deadly enemy. See Theodore Roosevelt’s depiction.
Another reason to identify Radical Islamic terrorism is to demonstrate whose side you are categorically on. If you hedge and don’t want to identify the nature of the enemy who are you assisting and who benefits?
There is absolutely no reason to mollify the nature of Islamic terrorism. It is brutal, it is vicious, it targets innocents and it is clearly anti-life. Any compromise with this is a stance for their side. To claim they have some positive attributes is to say they are not all bad. They are all bad. Those that follow the doctrines they utilize to justify their terrorist activities and simply discount the religion because they only pick and choose the parts that don’t include killing the infidels are hypocrites sitting in a cauldron of hate that they will not challenge.
The logical conclusion of calling the terrorists by their foundation beliefs leads to a renunciation of the followers who simply go along silently. You cannot say a religion that is hell bent on world domination has any redeeming qualities. A person who says they are Islamic but are not a terrorist is a person who says he believes what the Koran says but won’t act on it. Besides there is a more peaceful way to work toward world domination which we have seen in Europe and in a town in Michigan in the United States. Simply do not assimilate,vote in Muslim officials and instill Sharia law.
The Democrats believe they can move toward Socialism if they simply do not name it. Not naming it has made it palatable to the press. By not naming Radical Islamic terrorism will also make this viciousness more palatable since it diverts from the reality just as it did in the Fort Hood shooting. Misidentifying the attack at Ft. Hood as work place violence was an attempt to downplay the real cause and motivation. What does that misidentification serve?
The truth is the reason Obama was so upset with being called out on his attempt to downplay Islamic terrorism as simply undefined terrorism is he is doing what Democrats have relied on to explain their incompetence. Smear the opponent and change the subject. It didn’t work this time because the reality of the facts dictated some vestige of truth had to emerge. So he tried to explain why using the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” really didn’t do anything to change anything. Donald Trump pointed out that to solve a problem you have to define the problem which is true. The saying goes that a problem well defined is half solved. Apply this principle to any problem and you discover the value of it. For instance if you have a car that won’t start and you simply don’t define the reason why it won’t start you will spend a lot of time on trial and error “fixes” and may never discover the cause to remedy it. The same principle applies to war. Define the enemy, learn his vulnerabilities and you can defeat him. Using a generic term to define him and you will not know who your enemy is , what he is trying to accomplish and how you can defeat him.
This elementary review of why words matter and cannot be distorted and evaded should not be necessary. However when you have a president who is trying to con you there has to be an exposure of the fallacies he is using. Rationalization is a fallacy that begins with a viewpoint and then has explanations to support it. A proper approach would be to identify the issue and the components leading up to it naming them as precisely as you can and taking action to resolve the issue. This is not what our President does. He lies and he rationalizes thinking his B.S. will carry the day. It got him elected but it doesn’t help him to govern since reality gets in his way. He relies on the feelings and faith of the American people to support him which they did. Now that they are experiencing the danger of this approach perhaps they will recognize they have been conned. Naming the issue reveals the enemy whether it is Islamic or Presidential.