Now the Obama administration says Al Queda and Taliban are merely "armed insurgents" and ISIS/ISIL are terrorists?
Do you agree with the latest definitions of who is what when it comes to terrorists?
And can we succeed in this fight against terrorism if we are afraid to call it what it is?
I don't agree with it, but perhaps there is a reason for it.
There are so many radical Islamic splinter groups in the world that saying they are all terrorists is probably using too broad of a brush. Some of these groups are in competition with each other, they oppose each other. Some of them don't want to attack the West, but they want to have regime change at home. If a group of armed Shiite revolutionaries want to overthrow Iran's government are they terrorists? Or are they freedom fighters?
Aren't there radical Islamists in both Sunni and Shiite sects? If Obama were to use the phrase "radical Islamists" the Sunnis would think he is referencing the Shiites, and the Shiites would think he's referencing the Sunnis!
It really got dicey when we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq. Are we fighting radical Islam? Well, some of the Muslim citizens in those countries would never condone bombing U.S. civilians but they might be sympathetic to ousting the U.S. military from the middle east. So by using words like "terrorists" and "jihadists", etc. you could be inadvertently alienating Muslims.
Another example--we condemn Islamic "honor killings", or the stoning of women engaged in pre-marital or adulterous sex, yet probably 67% of Muslims endorse it. Are they terrorists?
Blasphemy is abhorred by a great majority in the Muslim world (just look at the reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed) but only a miniscule minority of them would go on a shooting spree. Are the majority of Muslims that object to a depiction of Mohammed terrorists?
Even Bush was careful with his words.
