White House edits French President François Hollande reference to Islamist terrorism

This is stupid. It is obviously a technical glitch. Why would the White House censor the video, but leave the transcript intact?

And now the video has been fixed, too.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-a...-bilateral-meeting-president-francois-holland

Partisans making silly partisan assumptions. Don't you get tired of looking foolish?

 

Why do you continue to give him a pass? Sure republicans share some of the blame but Obama is the President, he is the leader and he set the tone. And stop with the race bull (*)(*)(*)(*), people oppose Obama based on ideas far more than race. Pulling that is just admitting you have no real defense so let's scream racism.

Blame, blame , blame, no one is responsible for Obama's bad leadership but himself.

How many fights have the republicans won against Obama? I'd say zero, he's definitely benefited the most from his division. But please continue to tell me how Obama's not a fault and I'm a racist, it's really all his apologists have at this point.

 

Hollande very clearly said Islamic terrorism, not Islam, not all of Islam, not the state or being of Islam, and not every Muslim on the planet.

Islamic terrorism is a specific inclusive phenomenon.

Liberals voters are either too stupid to understand that or they're too stoned on their own SJW flatulence to bring themselves to admitting the distinction.

Obama wont admit it because hes a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing radical Muslim himself.

But either way why don't you try not invoking either "Christians" or the "but all Muslims aren't..." lines and see whats left to talk about here in this thread.

This administration has a clear agenda of advancing radical Islamic terrorism and they support that agenda on all avenues.

 

Because the right-wing noise machine said so and they need another reason to create an anti-Obama thread.

 

Because of obamacare, reaching for Cuba and his economic policies, but most of all because he is a moderate man of good intentions. On a more superficial aspect, I also like his class and dignity; I would be safe knowing he's representing my country (if I were an American), as his chances of saying something stupid are minimal.

And yet racism exists: It is a factor, probably more concealed among the political elite, but present nonetheless. It would be the same with a jewish Bernie Sanders in the WH - undoubtely, the anti-hebraic crowd would attack him (on anything but his jewishness). I don't say that every neocon is a racist, but skin-colour racists "naturally" oppose Obama. It's human nature, and it's universal.

The present division among Republicans isn't the fault of Obama; It is caused by a shifting current in the GOP since the Reagan days, as neocon, libertarians and tea-parties oppose real conservatives, who are on the losing side. And it's too bad, as there are conservative valours, like isolationism and economical restraint that would be useful these days.

 

I rest my case.

 

Oh you're not American, then I really don't care what you think about Obama or his policies. I could pretend to care and waste more of my morning but I don't so I won't.

 

I hate Obama like i hate all Progressives.. Of course i feel the same about Neo-cons so there goes your race baiting. Obama not being able to say the words Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Neo-Cons nor your talking point that they want to kill all Muslims...

Who is "using you like a whore"?

 

Well, yeah, as the little flag in the right corner says, I am not American.

I enjoyed our discussion, and I regret that the feeling was not mutual. Thanks anyway.

 

People who, with pleasant manners, would suck up my ressources and then drop me as soon as it's done.

 

And those are in your words "Jews"?

Can you see the issue people have when in this thread you have defend Muslim terrorists.. Attacked Christians and Jews and deflected to Bush and 911?

So i ask what wack job news site to you go to for your news?

 

Oh I enjoyed it but it's just a rule of mine. I don't debate other countries politics with them and I won't debate ours with them. Now if you want to talk fishing or leadership theory but not politicians.

 

Many Jewishcentric lobbies, undoubtely, are masters at this, yes, like Walt and Mersheimer reported. Zionists one are especially hard-hitting, like AIPAC, others are criminal, like ADF, and others are information coercion outlets, like CAMERA and Honest Reporting. However - and I know you are going to ignore this but here it goes anyway - I have no more love for the house of Saud lobby, even thought it doesn't affect my life like the censure the aformentionned zionist lobbies coerce on us. The Wall Street one, however, does affect my life on a much higher scale than the bad Jewish ones, and I have even less love for it.

Bottom line is: Lobbies try to pull the blanket on their side at our expense, and I don't like that one bit. I am for political independence.

Yeah. I think the moment where I realize that I wasted my time just happened, and it will hard to ignore.

 

Strange you didnt mention CAIR

 

You should rest your case because its as weak as Obama's wrist and and as infested with delusional ignorance as Obama's voter base.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” -Barack Hussein Obama

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” -Barack Hussein Obama

"The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” -Barack Hussein Obama

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” -Barack Hussein Obama

Afghanistan. The Obama administration’s longstanding negotiations with the Taliban have been a source of bemusement for those watching from the sidelines. Despite President Obama’s vow to win the “good war” in Afghanistan, he has been routinely working with the Taliban to come to a governmental arrangement for years. The release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five top terrorists is just the latest result of such contacts – and Obama can’t wait to close Gitmo and pull out of Afghanistan altogether, as he made clear this week, leaving America’s erstwhile allies in the lurch.

Iran. In the run-up to the 2012 election cycle, President Obama declared repeatedly that Congress’s sanctions against Iran had united the world against the state achieving nuclear weaponry. He told lackey Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, “When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we’ve ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.”

In 2013, Obama then cut a deal to destroy that unanimity, crafting a nuclear deal that undercut those sanctions in return for a non-existent delay in the nuclear program. That deal destroyed any possibility of a united world front against Iran, allowing Iran to claim that it was abiding by the agreement while working to thwart it.

Egypt. In 2009, President Obama spoke in Cairo. He insisted that members of the Muslim Brotherhood be invited to the speech. He then allowed American ally Hosni Mubarak to fall, backed the Muslim Brotherhood when Mohammed Morsi was elected president, and then worked to cut off funding when the Egyptian military ousted Morsi.

Syria. President Obama first threatened Syrian President Bashar Assad with military action if Assad used WMDs; he then began shipping weapons into Syria to al-Nusra, a terrorist group leading the Syrian opposition. Assad used WMDs. Obama then cut a deal to leave Assad in power while still providing assistance to the terrorists. So we’re not on just one wrong side in Syria. We’re on two.

Turkey. After the Turkish Islamist government sent a terrorist flotilla to the Gaza Strip and Israel confronted it, President Obama forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to apologize to the Turkish government.

 

CAIR? I had to google that. Are you going to compare AIPAC and CAIR in influence? When was the last time a US President made pledges to CAIR? When was the last time almost all presidential candidates tried to out-done one another for CAIR?

Anyway, if CAIR exercise as much coercion as AIPAC, they are also ennemies of mine. How about that?

 

It makes the USG look stupid, incompetent and heavy handed, But is this news anywhere in the world now?

 

I'm getting this vision of tubes and ducts necessary, maybe incorporating a fighter pilots oxygen mask. Or, and better, the nitrous oxide mask that the evil dentist (Steve Martin) wears.

Perfect.



Cheers
Labour

 

Look, I appreciate the effort, but you are peddling your (*)(*)(*)(*) to the wrong customer here.

 

No one seems to have a problem with calling the Mexican mafia the Mexican mafia. And maybe you're not giving Muslims credit for being unable to tell the difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism. The only way the phrase Islamic terrorism is offensive would be if all Muslims were terrorists and then who would even give a crap? If a person in not an Islamic terrorist then what's the problem? I'm part Italian and I don't get my colon in a twist when I hear someone way Italian mafia.

 

As an American Nationalist, I share your sympathies regarding banning all foreign lobbies. Unfortunately, if it were to be done you'd have to do it by executive order, or be prepared for the brunt of the criticism that you've seen. And yes, AIPAC is the worst as are the Neo-cons. It'd be better if they dropped the "American" and go serve in the IDF and the Kneeset.

 

Okay, I'll grant you have good argumentation there.

But is it worth tying one's panties into a bunch? Seems pretty minor to me. How would that help, exactly?

 

On this issue, in general:

As a Nationalist, I stand for the country above all else. The citizens are a part of that country, so that means the well-being of our citizens is a government's first and foremost priority. And obviously, that's extended towards our military. There's numerous benefits in identifying it as "Islamic Terrorism" that serve a geopolitical objective.

#1) First and foremost, we finally have an identity for this enemy. This identity isolates them to be this specific group of "Islamic Terrorists or extremists",
this would give comfort to the American Public, as the President can now more strongly do what Bush did, rather than this weak little dancing around that Obama/Clinton want to try to do, for whatever reason.

#2) It sends a strong message that America is going to commit more to the war effort. That we're done pansy footing around and that if they want to escalate tensions to the max, the US will respond in kind. This will result in them eventually surrendering, because while the US can take the collateral damage from Radical Islam, the Radical Islamists cannot. If we systematically purged every known terrorist cell, there wouldn't be a single proponent of Radical Islam left.

And that's the only way we can deal with the problem: Purging of the extremists. A "terrorist cell", is like a cancer cell. It spreads, and spreads and it'll damage the body of the international community. As far as I'm concerned, terrorism is a worse crime than murder. Terrorism is declaring to be an anti-human body(I made this argument once before in the Philosophy section way back.). As an anti-body cell in our human system, I argue for their eradication.

And like Steve N said: It shouldn't hurt unless they were all extremists, and even if they are: Well, it sucks to be them. But the human race will live, even if anti-humanists do not.

 

If it was just this one thing I would say it's minor, but it's not. What this perpetuates is the victim class and political correctness. We can't criticize Islam or illegals and we get called intolerant bigoted racists when we do. When people have the president of the USA defending them against rightful criticism that's when it goes from pretty minor to pretty big.

 

Maybe I didn't pay enough attention to such rethorics, but I tought the use of "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic terror groups" were of general use, here like in the 'States. I was in opposition to shorten that to "Islam". If it's the case, then yes it's a case of not not talking about the elephant in the living room.

Even such "identities" are a temporary thing: Extreme Islamists groups have no real boundaries and are more like hydras in the sense that you cut one head, and two more appears in its place. They're hard to pin down, not for denominative reasons but for geo-political ones. Once, you guys supported some of these Islamists, when they were known as "Moudjahidins" and fighting the soviets.

Why?

Why would you entangle America in this further? So your fat cats can continue to deal with the Sauds? Bashar's Syrian regime was no better than ISIL. These people, they have a lot of cleaning up to do, and they don't want us doing it in their place, nor do they want us to make any messier for imperialistic reason. Let's just butt out and let them sort it out for awhile - As long as they don't export this violence, I don't see how all arab/persian/muslim nations, even if united can militarly pose a threat to us if we leave them alone. What would they gain by attacking us then, unless it is to sucker us in under a false flag premise? As a nationalist, don't you favor a more isolationist position?

I think the most insidious manner it speads with, is the hatred, intolerence and removal of our liberties that makes us to be like them, the extremists, more than I'm comfortable with. Before 9-11, we were more free.