Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

obama still won't call it "terrorism"

2K views 45 replies 29 participants last post by  OD* 
#1 ·
shocking barack hussein obama still refuses to call the San Bernardino mass shooting a terrorist attack,rather he continues to push for more gun control and calls the attack a "gun control problem"...:mad::mad: isn't it also ironic this attack happened in CA which has has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country!
 
#3 ·
He's like a broken record on gun control. Dems are picking up on that and pushing it also . Might really be a looser come election time. American like their guns and being able to protect themselves . Unlike the lead anti gunners who have ARMED security around them 24/7
 
#6 ·
POTUS does not have to call it Terrorism in order for it be "Terrorism." It is what it is! We, the people, are not stupid. We have the ability and the knowledge to discern what is and what is not a particular thing. It's not "anything" simply because the elected person says it is or not. We, the people are able to decide. Remember, "it's WE, the PEOPLE."
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichB70 and ccw9mm
#7 ·
I think people greatly misunderstand the President and his motivations. Of course, for many it's a willful ignorance and a desire to ignore anything that might disagree with their dislike of him for whatever reason. But for the rest, let me explain it in very simple terms- President Obama is following the same script that Bush2 used as President. Those without blinders and selective memory will recall that Bush went out of his way to make it crystal clear that it was not a "Crusade" or a war against all of Islam, just terrorists. Surely every intelligent person can see the goal of terrorism, right? Daesh wants hatred, they want a Crusade. The goal is to turn Christianity against Islam and vice versa. They have a very similar apocalypse/end-times myth as Christianity. They believe the forces of the West will fight a final battle in the ME against the "faithful".

Again, ISIS wants hate. Full stop. They want a Crusade. That's why the President goes so far out of his way not to give them one. Most of the GOP is being played like a fiddle by ISIS. The terrorists couldn't have a better outcome if they were writing the speeches for Trump themselves.
 
#12 ·
So what's your suggestion for what Obama and/or the Republicans so say or do then? What is the solution to this in your opinion?
 
#8 ·
At least the FBI is calling it an act of terrorism -

Before she died in a hail of police bullets, the female attacker, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, employing an account that did not use her real name, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN on Friday.

This news helps move the investigation away from the notion that the San Bernardino attack was, perhaps, an act of workplace violence and makes it an act of terror. Indeed, on Friday the FBI announced that it is investigating it as an "act of terrorism."


What explains the biggest U.S. terror attack since 9/11? - CNN.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaedrus
#9 ·
I can see your point. The propaganda war is as important as the shooting war. But he is soft on them because his view of the world is so skewed.

Maybe he is right? They want to kill everyone because they are too hot and sweaty all the time, which keeps getting worse due to global warming.
Instead of bombing, we should be nice to them. Maybe add them to the doll. I mean if we just send them food stamps, they may not want to kill us anymore.

His view of himself as the crusader of justice and civil rights/savior of earth is amazing.
 
#13 ·
Well, the CIA considers global climate change to be a major security risk and a big driver of war and instability. It's not hard to see why; in Syria the civil war erupted after a multi-year drought lead to widespread shortages of food. As less and less land is arable and populations are displaced by rising sea levels things will just get worse.

Terrorism is really becoming about information, too. ISIS wants to drive the narrative. Most of them aren't afraid to die, they welcome it. And they're not worried about their countrymen being killed because they believe God is on their side. ISIS has a huge social media presence and even publishes a very slick, well laid out and expertly edited glossy magazine. They are putting their world view out there. There's no good reason for the US to play into their hands.

The President has stepped up the bombings of ISIS and is going everything that could probably be done legally without a declaration of war from congress. What more should he be doing? I'm not sure the American people are ready to commit half a million troops to another invasion of another ME country, especially with no clear goal or course of action.

Remember about a million years ago when Bush invaded in the first place. When it pointed out that "Operation Infinite Justice" would offend Muslims because only Allah has infinite justice, Bush changed the name of the operation. Let that sink in. It was a clear message that we were fighting against illegal actions, not the entire Muslim world. I think he showed wisdom in that one regard. But the GOP has reversed course and taken the bait, with every candidate falling over each other to attack Islam in every more inflammatory ways. It's red meat for their base because at heart politicians are basically whores, selling whatever they have to get into office. I wish they'd be a little more like G-Dub in that one respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rammerjammer
#37 ·
There is a fatal flaw in the "kid gloves for jihad theory" no matter what you do,say or how you react it WILL be exploited .
No matter what decision is made it will be twisted against you.

This should refine and define our course of action...........but no this administration continues with the silly PC approach.

You cannot have bombing runs at night then trot out the PC hugs and kisses during the day.

It just creates a whole new low in lack of respect in the eyes of our enemy,which again opens another avenue to be exploited.

It is time to get off the merry-go-round.
 
#15 ·
I'm not so sure I agree on the global warming causation, but let's table that one for a moment. I do agree with your comments in your second paragraph with the exception of the last sentence. I don't think any of the GOP folks are pushing war against all Muslims, they are specifically referring to radicalized Muslims as in ISIS and other groups. How is that falling right into their hands?

I do not believe POTUS is doing everything he can. He certainly isn't garnering support of the people (US) through his words or actions. I fail to see how calling ISIS "radical Muslim terrorists" that are out to kill us is going to make things worse for our country. He, therefore "WE the United States" is not showing leadership in the fight against them. We are weak and our weakness is well evident to our enemies. IMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaedrus
#17 ·
What does he need to say? He's dropping tons of bombs on them. What mean name can he call them that will show how strong America is? Tough talk is just for the rubes, it's red meat for the people who need to puff up. I don't think the entire GOP is trying to declare war on Islam but look at what they actually say- how many of the current crop of hopefuls backs a registry of all Muslims in America? Here's a test for you- if you think a given policy would be fine for Christians then it's fine to suggest for Muslims. Would you tolerate laws the required you to register your religion with the govt? Are you fine with the govt banning Catholic or Methodist churches?

And how do you feel when people like Dear are held up as 'radical Christian terrorists'? Perhaps exasperated? What does throwing the word Christian in there accomplish? Does it make "real" Christians more determined to root out their own radicals? Does it make you want to root out your racist Christians like Dylan Roof? I'm guessing the answer is no. It probably just makes you feel singled out for blame for stuff that has nothing to do with you. Bear in mind that Islam has no equivalent title to, say, the Pope in the Catholic church. There are Imams but no single supreme leader as in many other religions (eg Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama of Tibet or the Pope or even really the top bishops). There are regional religious leaders but they have not sway over the entire body of Islam save whatever charisma they have.

Say what you will about climate but understand it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. If you gathered every legitimate climate scientist in the world together at once, all the ones who don't think anthropogenic climate change exists would fit in my master bathroom. Seriously, the consensus on climate is actually stronger than the evidence that smoking causes cancer. The CIA knows it, the Pentagon is planning the next decades of the military based on it and even the oil companies know it and are investing accordingly. It's a bit beyond the scope of a gun forum but I would suggest one follows the money. In almost every case you can figure out a lot by figuring out who profits from something. The shadowy "global warming industry"? That's laughable. The biggest oil companies generate millions of dollars of revenue every few minutes! The entire alternate energy industry is a zit on their back. It's like worrying about a noise in the closet while Freddy and Jason are both standing in front of you. At any rate, there's absolutely no possibility that the climate isn't changing- you only need eyes and ears to see it. All the data shows it, interviews with the Innuit show it, photos of mountains around the world from different years shows it, etc. You could be the holdout that doesn't think humans are causing it but regardless of the cause we have to deal with it. There are islanders looking to move their countries because they're barely poking out of the seas. Even if we can't fix it we have to deal with consequences. You can deny reality but not the consequences of denying reality.

I apologize for the aside, you're probably right- it's beyond the scope of DC.

I'm not sure if Obama has the support of the American people on terror. I guess it depends on who you ask. There are serious calls for the impeachment of Hilary Clinton and we're not even close to the primaries yet. I'm only 46 years old but in my lifetime I've never seen the kind of polarization we have now. Years ago I knew some people who'd been congressional pages. Back in the 70's Dems and Repubs would argue in session but play golf together. Supposedly this changed around the 80's to the point where most of the different parties actively hated each other and mostly wouldn't socialize. Many folks hated Bush but mostly it was his policies; two disastrous wars, failure to act on intelligence that lead to the 9/11 attacks and being at the helm when the big banks drove the economy off a cliff in '08, etc. But the hatred of Obama is very different, more personal. He was loathed by the right before anyone even knew him. Speaking only for my own experience a lot of it is racial, and I'm sad to say I personally have family members that won't accept the legitimacy of black president. I'm sure not all the animus is racial but in SD and MN I've seen a lot of it.

But outside of the hardcore partisans I'd say he's got reasonable support. His poll numbers ebb and flow like poll numbers will. I'm not sure that minute by minute polls is the best way to run foreign policy. Broadly I think he's doing about as well as one could. The American people would revolt if we committed our troops to another invasion and occupation IMO. ISIS was created by American bombs so I'm not sure more bombs can destroy it. The people of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Iran will have to do a lot of the heavy lifting. It's their world to begin with.
 
#18 ·
Ignoring ISIS and pushing more control will give the Republicans the White House in 2017. The "so off the wall" reaction from Democrats regarding the San Bernadino shootings is not going unnoticed and their inability to say "Islamic Extremists" is turning some of the most die hard Democrats I know against them. I have relatives and friends that have been Obama supporters all the way. They are to the man voting Republican in 2016. Even they have had enough.
 
#20 ·
Do your female friends and relatives not vote?:wink: Just kidding! I get your point. But I don't have any friends that intend to vote Republican although about half my family probably will. There's no one in the GOP clown car I could vote for with a straight face save maybe Kaisich, at least up until he said he's create a new govt agency to promote Christianity around the world (!). Apparently he never got very far into the Constitution...he must have stopped reading before the Bill of Rights. He may just be saying that in an effort sound just insane enough to hang in there against Trump. I feel bad for him; the 2016 election is no place for a good, decent person. He'll be torn to shreds by his rivals.

I don't think the President has ignored ISIS. It's hard to think of the last US president that had success in dealing with the ME. It's like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end- the only way to win is not to play. What would you have him do against ISIS? And why do you need to hear the words "Islamic extremists" so badly? Is it impossible to deal with someone like Roof or Dear without calling them "Christian Extremists"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rammerjammer
#19 ·
Eh, consistency means predictability which should be easier to deal with than unpredictability.
 
#24 ·
Climate Change may or may not be a issue , but how far is that away 10 yrs - 50 yrs - 100 yrs - 1000 yrs.

My point would be if we don't do something drastic now about Radical Islam it will continue to kill decent Americans as 9/11 and events now have proved here on our soil and around the world .

Let's do something now on Islamic Radicals and on a parallel work the climate change issue we as American's can walk and chew gum at the same time .
 
#25 ·
To say that global warming caused problems with Muslims is very short sighted. The world has had problems with Muslims since their inception. Ever hear about the Crusades? As for the overall picture of the Middle East, I'm all for getting out of there and let them kill each other without our help. But no, this country feels the need to be the worlds policeman and get involved in everyone else's affairs. Add to the fact that there is oil involved just sweetens the pot.

As for Obama being a leader, he is a dismal failure and it's hard to believe that he has fooled the majority of the voters a second time. He spent his first term apologizing to the world for this country's past actions, gets involved in domestic actions only if he feels his race is being wronged. Made a mess out of medical insurance through Obamacare, established an easier free ride to some who chose not to work for a living. Has anyone here ever heard how often it is said that Social Security will run out of money soon ? Why is it we never hear that Welfare will soon run out of money?

If I were to vote today I would be hard pressed to chose a candidate, but I do know what I see in the candidate I would vote for and that would be one who is strong in domestic problems such as securing our borders from just anyone who wants in. Taking a hard look at illegal aliens who are here in a non productive role in those "safe haven" cities, and doing something about them. A candidate who doesn't feel the need to police the world.

I could go on but I'd be boring those of you who have your own opinions. I'm simply stating mine.
 
#27 ·
I don't want to start a new thread and this seems like the best place to ask , since this now has become a "terrorist act" will all those killed receive benefits from the government for their surviving family members ?? And do any others receive funds to have survived for possible trauma (physical or mental illness) issues ?????
 
#39 ·
Good luck with that. Maybe ask the victims and their families involved in the Fort Hood work place violence attack how this may go.
Has the WH conceded that this was a terrorist attack? Maybe after the elections the will come around. Sounds familiar!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMcPhe44
#33 ·
This particular group wants to kill anybody who will not join them.

They are Muslim Supremacists.

I don't know why any American politician would want to align with a supremacist group (by enabling their every move), but... there you go.

If you're not against them, you're with them.

In the words of one American president "The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Muhammad."
 
#42 ·
That is because calling the Islamic terrorist attack an Islamic terrorist attack doesn't fit the agenda of "our" liberal PoS-in-Chief, whereas disarming the American public so more acts like this can occur DOES fit his agenda.

Come-on Jan 20, 2017
 
#45 ·
The problem I see with calling it Islamic terrorism that to do so would force him to abandon his agenda to repeal the 2nd amendment. He can either ignore what it really is and push his anti-2A agenda(blame the guns), or call it what it is and admit that Americans need to arm themselves (blame the terrorist). He can't have it both ways, so he'll keep pushing his own agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanislaskasava
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top