I said terrorism feeds off fear. You said talking about republicans is the equivalent of talking about fundamentalist muslims committing terrorism.... I wasn't stretching.
You were clearly stretching cause I didn't say what you suggested I say. If I had, you would quote that. Instead, you are stretching from implication I made that had to do with how Obama can name one of his enemies (Republicans) and thus feed them by constantly calling them out and being very critical of them, but can't do it with another enemy which he (or America) is physically attacking. The logic, you used stated (and I quote):
When Trump stirs up fear of fundamentalist, ISIS and whatever the Islamic fear of the day is, he is feeding the terrorist machine, giving them credit for the fear and angst terrorism most desires. Obama doesn't focus on Islamic Fundamentalist because he doesn't want to cater to that fear. It isn't a sign of weakness, but of strength.
So Trump (along with many others) feeds the terrorist machine by naming Isis as engaging in militant (or radically extreme) Islamic ideology. Simply by naming them and drawing attention to this, he feeds fears. And I previously implied that Obama must be doing the same thing by naming Republicans and addressing their ideology in the negative ways he does, as an appeal to fear. That he feeds the Republican machine by just naming this. Yet in this post, I'm no longer implying what I meant, but stating it.
Yet from the previous implication, you took it as me implying that I am calling Republicans terrorists. When the reasonable implication is that if Obama has anyone that is not perfectly aligned with ideology, then if he is consistent, he ought to not call them out by any sort of name or he feeds them (somehow).
IMO, being more objective on this, one would realize that Trump is possibly using fear tactics to rally support for a different strategy going forward in national policy; while Obama is possibly using fear tactics to rally support for a different strategy going forward in national policy. Trump is looking to identify militant Islamic persons who have visibly physically attacked Americans and questioning how effective is our strategy thus far been, while Obama is looking to identify Republicans who have ideologically attacked Obama/Dems, and questioning how effective would it be to allow them to be in power (at federal level).
While it is a stretch, I think it is Obama that is possibly concluding that Pubs are more dangerous to America going forward than terrorists and is willing to call them out by name (as a group) so all are clear of who he is referencing and how dangerous they are in Obama/Dem opinion.
So what exactly do you think the president talking about it would accomplish? Every time he would talk about muslims or islam as the problem, ISIS would point to that and say, "see, we were right! They are out to destroy Islam." This is the kind of rhetoric that is used to radicalize people.
Obama could be clear to not state Muslims or Islam is the problem. And could be clear that militant Muslims are the problem. This would then make it clear to all, including moderate Muslims who the U.S. is at war with, and that we are looking for everyone that is not supporting of that ideology (terrorism through distorted rhetoric of Islamic faith) to assist us in our efforts going forward. Such that if you observe someone that is Muslim (or really could be anyone) and engaging in activities/preparations that appear to be militant, you'd report them, rather than have PC type concerns that would stop you because it's not really clear to you what 'helping the U.S. in their war effort means.'
From here, the clear identification, leads to long term strategy where U.S. is allied with moderate Muslims and working against the militant version of that faith that many to most moderate Muslims express is a distortion of their beliefs. In the short term, that might not always play out so rosy perfect because of how militant the U.S. is in its ongoing mission. Such that if Obama authorizes drone attack and that kills a number of moderate Muslims, it would be challenging (I would think) for moderate Muslims to know which side to choose, and likely end up choosing neither, even while U.S. would essentially demand you're either with us or against us, as would the Militant Muslim say essentially the same thing. But if the U.S. is clear in their message and consistently stating it, then the discerning Muslim can determine whether they wish to ally with the U.S. in overcoming Militant Muslims or stay on sidelines.
I would prefer our president to not become a recruitment tool for ISIS. Thanks.
Yeah, I'm sure militant minded Muslims would love Obama for using drone attacks in the middle east. Not use that as a recruiting tool, such that a person would never call 911 before an attack on U.S. soil and say things like, I'm about to demonstrate Islamic vengeance because of U.S. and Russia attacks on Islamic lands. Even while this person is not formally affiliated with Isis, but visibly is influenced by the recruitment strategies of Isis to the point where such an attack makes perfect sense in their mind.
Thus any POTUS who thinks any type of attack on anyone in the middle east is sensible and is exercising defense strategy for the U.S. would become recruiting tool for Isis. One would think this would include Bush, Obama, Trump and H. Clinton if they are paying attention. Or they could use wishful thinking and perhaps believe it only possibly pertains to Bush and Trump and magically Obama and H.Clinton have a, get out of Isis recruitment tool, card.
