It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WH Censors French President Saying ‘ISLAMIST Terrorism’

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.




posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: UnBreakable

Yay censorship!


Who was it who said. . . ?

"If you want to find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticize."



You are certainly allowed to criticize whoever you want. The edited part, if it was, was not a US citizen and whitehouse.gov follows certain protocols. If 19 conservative websites found this, it is no secret.

Just looking at ATS it is obvious that there is no censorship in regard to this.
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.




posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.



I don't say it because I do not believe it is an accurate term. I believe it is inflammatory and not helpful. I would say Religious Extremism.
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: UnBreakable

So the story here is they edited all the videos of him saying this and not just the one on the white house site? I can't watch the videos but I only see the one on the article. And that is what it read saying it was pulled from YouTube as well.


You are correct. They edited all videos from that particular speech. Government censorship at it's finest.

ETA: It's one thing if Obama doesn't want to use that term, but to censor when another head-of-state says it is totally mind blowing.


That is what is so disturbing. If he doesn't want to call it what it is, fine. He can call it whatever he decides he needs to call it to keep the truth from hurting his sympathetic nerve. But, don't ever edit or filter what another world leader thinks and says. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The American People and indeed, the whole world should be allowed to hear what a world leader says without the Great Editor-in-Chief of the World censoring what we hear.
edit on 1-4-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
You are certainly allowed to criticize whoever you want. The edited part, if it was, was not a US citizen and whitehouse.gov follows certain protocols. If 19 conservative websites found this, it is no secret.

Just looking at ATS it is obvious that there is no censorship in regard to this.


Isn't it remarkable, these same people complain about victimhood and snowflakes, while whining incessantly about "censorship" when no one is actually being censored!

These "victims" of "political correctness gone mad" are not victims of anything but their own rhetoric. They love nothing more than to imagine how "oppressed" they are while not being oppressed in the slightest.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: UnBreakable

So the story here is they edited all the videos of him saying this and not just the one on the white house site? I can't watch the videos but I only see the one on the article. And that is what it read saying it was pulled from YouTube as well.


You are correct. They edited all videos from that particular speech. Government censorship at it's finest.

ETA: It's one thing if Obama doesn't want to use that term, but to censor when another head-of-state says it is totally mind blowing.


That is what is so disturbing. If he doesn't want to call it what it is, fine. He can call it whatever he decides he needs to call it to keep the truth from hurting his sympathetic nerve. But, don't ever edit or filter what another world leader thinks and says. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The American People and indeed, the whole world should be allowed to hear what a world leader says without the Great Editor-in-Chief of the World censoring what we hear.


Again, I am sure the entire meeting is available. Because it is edited in one place does not mean it is hidden from us.

Now a new name. Editor in Chief. Obama is the President and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

edit on 4jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: reldra
You are certainly allowed to criticize whoever you want. The edited part, if it was, was not a US citizen and whitehouse.gov follows certain protocols. If 19 conservative websites found this, it is no secret.

Just looking at ATS it is obvious that there is no censorship in regard to this.


Isn't it remarkable, these same people complain about victimhood and snowflakes, while whining incessantly about "censorship" when no one is actually being censored!

These "victims" of "political correctness gone mad" are not victims of anything but their own rhetoric. They love nothing more than to imagine how "oppressed" they are while not being oppressed in the slightest.


Yes, it is remarkable. Everyone else are Special Snowflakes, until they are. This is not the first thread in a couple days nit picking on one or two words. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel and the quality of the sources continues to plunge.

I wonder if they are in need of a safe space? /sarc
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.



I don't say it because I do not believe it is an accurate term. I believe it is inflammatory and not helpful. I would say Religious Extremism.


What's inaccurate about the term? Are they not terrorists who are Islamic?

So your term Religious Extremism infers that people of other religions like Jews and Christians killed people in France and Brussels. I better not refer to my dress shoes as black loafers anymore. People might think I'm referring to lazy, dark skinned people.
edit on 4jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.



I don't say it because I do not believe it is an accurate term. I believe it is inflammatory and not helpful. I would say Religious Extremism.


What's inaccurate about the term? Are they not terrorists who are Islamic?


You know what is inaccurate. It paints all Muslims as terrorists. I don't use the phrase Christian Terrorism for that very reason.


Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists


NY TIMES
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


I would say that most White Supremecists are Christian, as well as anti-government factions. I still will not use the mirrored term. It is inaccurate.
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.



I don't say it because I do not believe it is an accurate term. I believe it is inflammatory and not helpful. I would say Religious Extremism.


What's inaccurate about the term? Are they not terrorists who are Islamic?


You know what is inaccurate. It paints all Muslims as terrorists. I don't use the phrase Christian Terrorism for that very reason.


If you're a Muslim who is not a terrorist, it shouldn't be offensive. The term isn't 'All Muslims', it's 'Islamic Terrorism'. It's very specific. Are you inferring all Muslims are thin skinned?



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: UnBreakable

The US administration does not use the term 'Islamic terrorism' and for good reason. It would make sense that a video hosted on whitehouse.gov did not include the phrase. The phrase is all over the place as it is, it is not being hidden, people are not being stopped from saying it. It is a terrible phrase, yet I see the right wing use it liberally.

This is neither propaganda nor censorship. The transcript is still available. The video was edited, to What extent I can't say. I do hear Hollande say Iraq, Syria and daesh and something before that which would take up the time.

There is not a lot of time for Hollande to say all that is pointed out as 'edited'. I am not saying it wasn't, but do we have someone here that understands spoken french? The original must have been copied and uploaded somewhere.



Good reason? What's the reason? For a phrase that's all over the place and not hidden, libs can't bring themselves to say it.



I don't say it because I do not believe it is an accurate term. I believe it is inflammatory and not helpful. I would say Religious Extremism.


What's inaccurate about the term? Are they not terrorists who are Islamic?


You know what is inaccurate. It paints all Muslims as terrorists. I don't use the phrase Christian Terrorism for that very reason.


If you're a Muslim who is not a terrorist, it shouldn't be offensive. The term isn't 'All Muslims', it's 'Islamic Terrorism'. It's very specific. Are you inferring all Muslims are thin skinned?


I am implying no such thing. I would hope that all Christians are not thin skinned. But I won;t use the term in regard to Christian Extremists either.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: damwel



So when religious zealots kill a doctor who performs abortions we should call them Christian Murderers?

Yep.
Pretty simple.
If their religion is at the heart of their crime... the reason for it.... then make note of it when you describe it. It is important.



It is not simple at all.

It is for me.
If a person kills an abortion doctor because of their Christian religious beliefs, then tell it like it is.... that person is a Christian terrorist.
If a group of African Christians wipe out a group of defenseless villagers just because they are Muslim....they are Christian terrorists.
If a person kills defenseless people and shouts 'Alluhah Ahkbar' while they do it....that person is an Islamic terrorist.

It isn't that hard.
edit on b000000302016-04-01T15:08:45-05:0003America/ChicagoFri, 01 Apr 2016 15:08:45 -0500300000016 by butcherguy because: Grammar repair.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: damwel



So when religious zealots kill a doctor who performs abortions we should call them Christian Murderers?

Yep.
Pretty simple.
If their religion is at the heart of their crime... the reason for it.... then make note of it when you describe it. It is important.



It is not simple at all.

It is for me.
If a person kills an abortion doctor because of their Christian religious beliefs, then tell it like it is.... they are Christian terrorists.
If a group of African Christians wipe out a group of defenseless villagers just because they are Muslim.... they are Christian terrorists.
If a person kills defenseless people and shouts 'Alluhah Ahkbar' while they do it.... they are Islamic terrorists.

It isn't that hard.


It is simply 'terrorism' or 'extremism'. The people doing this are nuts, their religion did not tell them to do this, though they may believe it did. therefore they are just terrorists. I also don't want to give them the courtesy of a title that contains the name of a religion that does not say to do these things. For all of them.

It only furthers their delusional belief they act on behalf of a religion.
edit on 1-4-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra



The people doing this are nuts, their religion did not tell them to do this, though they may believe it did.

So an Imam exhorting his flock to 'strike the necks' of unbelievers is not the problem, when he is quoting religious scripture, it is the nuts that believe him?
What explains the rather large number of 'nuts' in certain areas of the Middle East..... something in the water?


edit on b000000302016-04-01T15:17:32-05:0003America/ChicagoFri, 01 Apr 2016 15:17:32 -0500300000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: reldra



The people doing this are nuts, their religion did not tell them to do this, though they may believe it did.

So an Imam exhorting his flock to 'strike the necks' of unbelievers is not the problem, when he is quoting religious scripture, it is the nuts that believe him?
What explains the rather large number of 'nuts' in certain areas of the Middle East?



Most Imams will not say that as most Priests or Ministers will not quote many bible passages as Directions.

In many countries, Egypt is a good example, they have placed many regulations on what can be a mosque- the size, lo cation, etc., as they found the extremist Imams, ones that had not met their guidelines to even be an Imam, were most likely quoting scripture out of context.

I would say a good 95% or more of mosques in the US do no have Imams that are so irresponsible. Oddly, I am not so sure of many Evangelist churches and Ministers- especially in the Southern US.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I'm a Christian. I am white. I am not a White Supremacist. I realize all White Supremacists are Christian. If someone used the term 'White Supremacist Christian", I would not be offended because I realize not ALL Christians are White Supremacists.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Then I don't buy it, why this video when there are plenty out there saying it? Also the original would be somewhere, it always is.

I can't watch the video right now, but could it just be an audio error?



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra



as they found the extremist Imams, ones that had not met their guidelines to even be an Imam, were most likely quoting scripture out of context.

So if a Methodist kills someone in the name of their religion, it is not done by a Christian , just because a Catholic views Methodists as being lost souls?
Splitting hairs in order to be politically correct in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join