Do You Agree With Obama's refusal to describe the Islamic State and al Qaeda as group??

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:15:26 -0400

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 14 at 2016 6:16 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:16:59 -0400

Obama doesn't want to anger Muslims and says we are not at war with Islam. But we are at war with those who pervert this religion.

Valerie Jarrett explains why Obama won’t say “Islamic” terrorism: there are other kinds of terrorism, too

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Jun 14 at 2016 6:26 AM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:26:41 -0400

in a word...NOPE.

Response by CPL Patrick Brewbaker made Jun 14 at 2016 6:58 AM

CPL Patrick Brewbaker — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:58:58 -0400

Nope.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 14 at 2016 7:14 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 07:14:47 -0400

No, I don't. He should be able to easily say we are at war with radical Islamic jihadists. That does not equal that we are at war with islam as a religion. It is not as though you could really even be at war with a religion since a state of war normally exists against a nation state. We would need to be at war with dozens of countries to be at war with islam. Radical islamists have no officially recognized state.

He is starting to look like the guy that refuses, even in the 21st century, to admit the world is round, not flat. His looks absurd doing the verbal gymnastics to keep from saying what we all know to be true.

We are not dropping ordinance and deploying troops against anyone but radical islamists anywhere in the world. He is a weak man of even weaker constitution. He cannot admit the obvious because it does not align with his world view. A true and pure ideologue.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 14 at 2016 9:50 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:50:58 -0400

I almost hate to say it but maybe DT is on to something when he says that Pres Obama knows something about the rise of terrorism that we don't. It's been suggested for a long time that BO has sympathetic leanings or a soft spot in his heart for Muslims of all stripes and colors, including (perhaps) the terroristic kind. As such he cannot bring himself to rise above a PC, half-hearted and reticent response to World Terrorism, even to the point of making it a gvt policy to not refer to 'radical Islamic terrorists'. Terrorists do not fear US and certainly do not respect US. With a President like BO they have no reason to do either.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Jun 14 at 2016 9:52 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:52:09 -0400

"Obama didn't use the "radical Islamic" label at yesterday's news conference. Many are asking Why??

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 10:11 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:11:01 -0400

To me, it isnt even a matter of "should he", but moreso "why hasn't he". It doesn't make sense to call them anything else

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 14 at 2016 10:20 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:20:17 -0400

If he was Christian or Jewish, he would be the first to mention it.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 14 at 2016 1:29 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:29:20 -0400

He is in his own zone. Whatever that may be.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Jun 14 at 2016 2:01 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:01:11 -0400

Sgt Tom Cunnally Absolutely not ... He should use the term "Radical Islamic Terrorists". His refusal to speaks volumes about where his loyalties lie.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2016 7:20 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:20:58 -0400

Those are two different groups with differing objectives. In Syria, they are actually fighting each other, with AQ (in the guise of the Al Nusra Front) the more endangered species of the two.