Pirate's Cove

It’s probably more like “strategic patience”, which is a phrase for a policy position more akin to “meh”. Like when you know you should really, really get your oil changed, but lying on the couch watching a TV show marathon is oh so comfy

(NY Times) President Obama chooses his words with particular care when he addresses the volatile connections between religion and terrorism. He and his aides have avoided labeling acts of brutal violence by Al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and their allies as “Muslim” terrorism or describing their ideology as “Islamic” or “jihadist.”

With remarkable consistency — including at a high-profile White House meeting this week, “Countering Violent Extremism” — they have favored bland, generic terms over anything that explicitly connects attacks or plots to Islam.

Obama aides say there is a strategic logic to his vocabulary: Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as “Islamic” would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do, they say, is imply that the United States lumps the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.

Interesting. Obama and his team have absolutely no problem labeling Republicans, Tea Party members, Conservatives, Christians. Of course, we aren’t at war with the United States. As for Islamic extremists, they aren’t at war with the U.S. They’re at war with the world, at least the world that isn’t already Islamist.

Addressing the extremism conference on Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged the complaints and took pains to try to explain his approach.

“Leading up to this summit, there’s been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge, so I want to be very clear about how I see it,” the president said. “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam.”

But Mr. Obama said that “we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.” The operatives of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, “are not religious leaders — they’re terrorists,” he said.

A false premise. First, they do not portray themselves as religious leaders: they portray themselves as Islamic religious believers. They aren’t defending Islam: they’re projecting a 7th century version of Islam.

The president’s comments suggest that the criticism has disturbed him. “You know your talking points are no longer working when you have to talk about your talking points,” said Peter D. Feaver, a political scientist at Duke who was deeply involved in shaping President George W. Bush’s language while he worked at the White House from 2005 to 2007.

Well, fortunately, Obama acknowledges that these “let’s not name them Islamists” terrorists have legitimate grievances

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

Um, what? As Katie Pavlich writes

What, exactly, does Obama mean when he says “legitimate grievances”? The grievances Al Qaeda and ISIS hold are against infidels and Muslims who don’t go far enough to wage jihad on the West. These “grievances” aren’t economic, despite what the State Department would like us to believe.

Exactly. They aren’t grievances about poverty, jobs, “climate change”, wanting a $15 minimum wage, or anything else: they are about people not practicing the 7th century version of Islam. Convert or die. Islamist groups like ISIS tend to kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. And really do not want democracy. More like Theocracy. I thought Lefties opposed Theocracies? Though, they might have a legitimate grievance about people who refuse to acknowledge that they are Islamic.

One has to wonder, though, if Obama was referring to Israel as a “legitimate grievance”?

Crossed at Right Wing News.