Is POTUS correct in using the term "Violent Extremism" instead of Islamic Extremism?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:23:33 -0400

Recently the White House hosted a summit on combating violent extremism. During the summit there was a noticeable effort made not to link Islam with the actions of violent groups such as Al Qaeda. He consistently made an effort during the summit to stress this point stating that, terrorists have perverted Islam and do not reflect it's tenants. This is a message that our previous POTUS also stated. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/19/remarks-president-summit-countering-violent-extremism-february-19-2015

Remarks by the President at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism | February 19, 2015

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you, John. Good morning, everyone. I want to thank John Kerry, not only for his introduction, but for the outstanding leadership of American diplomacy. John is tireless. If he has not visited your country yet, he will soon. And I want to thank you and everybody here at the State Department for organizing and hosting this ministerial today.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 11:29 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:29:42 -0400

Until he understands why the anger over not saying Islamic and stop uses the bullypulpit in fits of rage he is going to elicit strong emotions. Many feel he is not on our team and coming from the office of president, that is not a good thing.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 11:29 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:29:57 -0400

He likes to protect his people, the Muslims.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 22 at 2015 11:37 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:37:34 -0400

Even though most terrorism/extremism which we hear about in the media happen to have been caused by Muslims, POTUS did not want to link Muslim = Terrorist. Since there are extremists in all ends, they can all be categorized into Violent Extremism. Then there can sub-categorization into Islamic Extremism, Christian Extremism, etc.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 11:37 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:37:45 -0400

Of course he is Sir, he has to. If he didn't then there would be a huge uproar of people pretending to be offended because that is what we do now. Unfortunately no one is allowed to be offended, even if there is a serious problem to be dealt with. At the same time, even if he did use the term "Islamic Extremism" the outcome will be the same, which is that nothing can or will be done about it.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 22 at 2015 11:38 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:38:46 -0400

No, the POTUS is twisting his mind in knots trying to avoid the obvious.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jul 22 at 2015 11:39 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:39:31 -0400

The more he uses terms like Islamic extremism, the more the militants can use his words to make this a war against Islam overall (rather than a war specifically against militant radical Islamists). Basically, if he calls it Islamic extremism, he's playing right into the terrorists' hands and is helping fuel their recruiting efforts. I don't have a problem with his approach.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Jul 22 at 2015 11:42 AM

PFC Tuan Trang — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:42:40 -0400

I'll guess cause "Violent Extremism" Sound less racial then "Islamic Extremism",

Response by CDR Terry Boles made Jul 22 at 2015 11:47 AM

CDR Terry Boles — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:47:21 -0400

Unfortunately his comments do not win the hearts and minds of fellow citizens who see the violence associated with Islam outliers as Islamic Extremism.

Honesty is needed to address this problem along with a real plan to address this global influence, not diplomacy with vagueness which has changed nothing for the positive. Call it like it is! He is way too timid to offend any one group of people; well except our police, military, US citizens, etc.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 22 at 2015 11:58 AM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:58:31 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member - Captain; I think that Mr. Obama was soft-peddling the issue.

I'd have gone straight to "Sociopathic Murderers Bent On Perverting and Destroying Civilization".

Unfortunately that's too long to get into a headline and doesn't come with a really nifty acronym so it will never sell and you simply can't print "Psychotic Murderous Assholes" (or say it on the air [although you could get away with "Psychotic Murderous Scum" {except that the "Extremely Radical Feminists" would get upset about the fact that the acronym "PMS" is sexist}]).

I do, however wonder if those who are the loudest about being all upset by President Obama referring to "Violent Extremists" are worried that there might end up being action taken against those "Violent Extremists" who AREN'T "non-American, non-White, non-JudeoChristians"?

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 22 at 2015 12:02 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:02:47 -0400

One of the funniest people I ever met was a guy from Lebanon. Most Muslims are just like the rest of us -- they just want to work, eat, be with their families, get ahead. It's only the abhorrent few that ruins it for the rest. So I'm ok with Obama's approach. No reason to piss off the millions of innocents by labeling them with a moniker that isn't accurate.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 22 at 2015 12:06 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:06:02 -0400

No CPT Private RallyPoint Member, the President is not correct in generalizing violent acts committed by the followers of the Islamic prophet against non-believers, opposing soldiers in Iraq and Syria who are also Muslim by called it "violent extremism." The despicable acts caused by ISIS, Al Shabab, and lone-wolf Muslims are acts committed in the name of their God. Generally these criminals and terrorists adhere to the Wahhabi doctrine first made "popular" in Saudi Arabia with made more famous by Al Qaeda.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 22 at 2015 12:24 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:24:05 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I think the use of "Violent Extremism" is the best term to use by the POTUS. I agree with other comments in support of this use versus the Islamic Extremism! This way any type of International terrorism can be grouped into a common strategy. I think it is a smart move on his part and the administration. Not everything thing this POTUS does is wrong or bad. His advisors should be working overtime to get the right messages out. I give him a "thumbs up" and you too CPT Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SGT Christopher Churilla made Jul 22 at 2015 12:51 PM

SGT Christopher Churilla — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:51:50 -0400

I believe he is. Extremists can be found in just about any belief system, it's just that the Muslims ones are getting most of the attention these days.

For example, is a pro-lifer who bombs an abortion clinic any less an extremist? Or an environmentalist who sabotages construction sites?

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 22 at 2015 1:09 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:09:54 -0400

He will do and say anything to not say Muslim extremism

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Jul 22 at 2015 4:44 PM

CPL Brian Clouser — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:44:29 -0400

I believe in calling it how it is. The POTUS is and has been using the wrong term. It's Islamic Extremism pure and simple. We need to stop be being so PC and start calling a spade a spade. The biggest problem we have in this country is everybody is so worry that they will offend someone, or hurt someone feelings that we are afraid to tell the truth

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jul 22 at 2015 7:29 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:29:26 -0400

How about "Violent Islamic Extremism" ?

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jul 22 at 2015 7:32 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:32:46 -0400

Is this also why his administration labeled Major Hasan's mad murder at Ft. Hood "workplace violence"? To not give other Islamic extremists a chance to twist his words? Or to be " intentionally vague " to avoid contention?

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 7:53 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:53:33 -0400

He is too scared to associate the fact that most terrorist practice the Muslim religion.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jul 22 at 2015 8:14 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:14:13 -0400

I agree. All of these extremists have been denounced as "UN-Islamic" by every leader in the region. Islam has no central leader (like the Pope or Church President) but every authoritative cleric has also denounced them. The grand mufti (senior cleric) in Riyadh has issued a fatwa (legal opinion) saying they are UN-Islamic and murder of innocents is a wrong that cannot be forgiven. The leaders cannot make it any clearer. However, in the USA, low information consumers cannot understand this and insist on blaming all Muslims. I'm currently spending time with some "Muslims" who also happened to be Oregon Ducks since they both attended undergrad there. They love Oregon and all their American friends and I'm worried because we have people out there who wouldn't bother to discover that, just hate them for their accents. This isn't much different than the xenophobia America displays during any event in our history - Jews, Irish, Italians all faced unreasonable hatred, so did the Chinese "yellow peril" and the Japanese, Germans and Italians during WW II, so did Latin Americans in the 80s (Cuban boat lift) and now Middle Easterners. Are there violent extremists? Yes, of course. Look at the numbers - they are pretty small now, but let hate radio and TV continue to vilify, let loudmouths continue to disparage (as is their right under the First Amendment) and those numbers can increase. Look at France- they have a huge Muslim population (from Algeria and other places) since the 50s (they are French citizens) and they've always treated them like crap and excluded them and maligned them (like we do to black folks) and now they have a significant problem with radicals. I'd take care in labels, these sick people are violent extremists and we need to treat them as such.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 23 at 2015 8:39 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:39:45 -0400

I just want to know why he refuses to call a Muslim terrorist just that, a Muslim terrorist.

I'm sure he would call people like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols Right-Wing Extremists/Terrorists!

Response by SGT Scott Curtice made Jul 23 at 2015 1:39 PM

SGT Scott Curtice — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:39:27 -0400

yes, because we need to address other violent extremism that is non-islamic, and tying this behavior of the KKK for example, of a Timothy McViegh type, etc.. is a focus change we need.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 23 at 2015 3:04 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:04:20 -0400

Iraq was pretty stable when we left, but in hindsight, the people, government, and army had fundamental flaws and weaknesses that allowed a large insurgency to build up in the country due to the inherent chaos. We thought the COIN Manual was the answer.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jul 24 at 2015 3:50 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:50:49 -0400

From Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Lt. Lockhart: [reading] ... we have a new directive from M.A.F. on this. In the future, in place of "search and destroy," substitute the phrase "sweep and clear." Got it?
Private Joker: Got it. Very catchy.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 24 at 2015 9:37 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:37:03 -0400

The term is sufficient to make the point. There are 1.3 billion Muslims world wide and using the Muslim extremist rhetoric would give the impression that the U.S. is at war against Islam. He is correct in calling it violent extremism. The simple fact is that this president, no matter what he called it, would be criticized.

You can call dog doo ice cream but it's still dog doo.

Response by SPC Heath Todd made Jul 25 at 2015 3:20 PM

SPC Heath Todd — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:20:53 -0400

Will the choice of any terms used make the efforts by terrorists any less than they are already? If people join their efforts based off of what POTUS uses for terms of describing them, in my mind they would have anyway. I'm tired of PC, like really tired of it. I know there's rhymes and reasons for everything, I just wished the same logic was used when homeland security decided we were enough of a threat to list us on their paperwork. Where was the same awareness for being sensitive to how people feel then?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 25 at 2015 6:27 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:27:17 -0400

Of course he is. We don't call that latest theater killing in this Country "Christian" Extremism but I bet that Looney considered himself a "Christian". No it is way to easy to paint one of the 4 Major Faiths with such a Broad Brush.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2015 9:31 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:31:05 -0400

Regardless of who the President links with the "violent extremism" it is a fact of reality that they are directly linked with Islam. It really doesn't matter what contortions he takes to avoid the association. The association is obvious.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Jan 12 at 2016 10:38 AM

CW3 Jim Norris — Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:38:12 -0500

No, like saying a car was involved in all the wrecks.....when you know it was a 2015 blue Chevrolet Malibu driven by a hijab wearing woman with a wooden leg.....silly, silly misnomer...