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.

 

Why Obama and Clinton won't brand it Islamic Terrorism

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Hello all,

I would like to throw an idea out there for you.

I recently came to the conclusion that they won't brand Terrorism Islamic because they plan on broadening the scope of counter terrorism to Patriot groups within the US.

In my opinion maintaining a war on terror without branding it allows them to broaden the scope of investigation and possibility of groups they are allowed to use the power that comes with this terminology.

www.state.gov...



“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February 2015.


I do agree with this to an extent. However it's what version of Islam we are at war with not all of Islam. Islam is what brings them together not what turns them violent.

I still stand behind my initial assertion that they won't brand this version of terrorism so they can broaden the scope of power they can assert over anyone they choose to label a terrorist.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I believe you are correct - this is why Obama referred to the Orlando shooter as a "homegrown terrorist".

The objective will be to focus not on islam but on any "homegrown" opponents of the Obama regime

A strategy somewhat similar in approach to moving from global warming being bad to any climate change being bad.


The aim in both cases is for them to find an excuse for more power




edit on 14-6-2016 by M5xaz because: c

edit on 14-6-2016 by M5xaz because: c



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

Not the Obama regime but the incremental technocratic rule over us and our genes by the hidden elite.


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Patriot groups are as full of informers as 1%'er MCs are.

I think it has infinitely more to do with calling it Islamic terrorism takes gun control off the table, and quite possibly puts democrats' gun control aims at a disadvantage. Leaving it a vague "terrorism" and using terms like self-radicalized and homegrown leaves gun control right at the center of the table for Obama and Clinton both.

The minute they call it Islamic terror, that card is gone for them.
edit on 14-6-2016 by Shamrock6 because: Typo



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: onequestion

I believe you are correct - this is why Obama referred to the Orlando shooter as a "homegrown terrorist".

The objective will be to focus not on islam but on any "homegrown" opponents of the Obama regime

I watched a clip of him saying, "Radical Islam." It looks like he was stuttering ... he was trying so hard not to marry the word terrorism in with the two he finally managed to mutter.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Patriot groups are as full of informers as 1%'er MCs are.

I think it has infinitely more to do with calling it Islamic terrorism takes gun control off the table, and quite possibly puts democrats gun control aims at a disadvantage. Leaving it a vague "terrorism" and using terms like self-radicalized and homegrown leaves gun control right at the center of the table for Obama and Clinton both.

The minute they call it Islamic terror, that card is gone for them.


Bingo!



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Has anyone just stopped and considered these US-born Muslim shooters just YELL "ISIS!" to be an even more PAIN in the side of the the government/society?

They're already pissed off enough to KILL masses people.

Perhaps throwing a shout out to ISIS is just another jab to make things more messy? If one intends to cause mass damage and hysteria in a blaze of violence -- why not just add some more on top by throwing in some ISIS reference.

The guy probably HATED the government (most people don't really LIKE the government). Why NOT just throw it out there to make the mess worse?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Patriot groups are as full of informers as 1%'er MCs are.

I think it has infinitely more to do with calling it Islamic terrorism takes gun control off the table, and quite possibly puts democrats' gun control aims at a disadvantage. Leaving it a vague "terrorism" and using terms like self-radicalized and homegrown leaves gun control right at the center of the table for Obama and Clinton both.

The minute they call it Islamic terror, that card is gone for them.


VERY well said, and I could not agree more - it simply defies logic that they would not call it what it is....unless of course they have an ulterior motive???



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
One of the comments in one of Obama's speech was that the terrorists want the terror to be recognized, they like the label "terrorist".
He said they don't like the idea that it's "murder".
So he doesn't want to give them the recognition of terrorists. It's what they want.

I'm paraphrasing here, and I don't have a link. CNN had him on talking a couple of times today.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I think he said pretty clearly why. The terrorists want to make it about Islam. They want jihad. Holy War. Leaving Islam out is a device they use to take that away from them. It's not a war on Islam. It's a war on terror.
Radical Islamic terrorists isn't a magic phrase.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

The flip side to Obama's remark that calling it Islamic terror isn't a magical phrase that helps a military plan and does nothing to combat it or keep jihadists from doing what they do is that NOT calling it Islamic terror does precisely dick about it also. No wannabe jihadist has said "well damn, president Obama didn't call it Islamic terror, I guess I will not jihad today."

Twitter and mobile phones make sure everybody knows what it is, whether Obama wants to call it that or not. No amount of flowery prose on his part changes that fact. He just comes off looking like he's afraid to call it what it is.

That, and like he knows he can't use Islamic terrorism for gun control. Far from it.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Terror is an emotion.

You can't fight an emotion.

You can fight radical Islamic terrorists.

The dirty trick is to bring in boatloads of radical Islamists have them spread their hate and violence in the US and then call it "homegrown".

It's not "homegrown" it's imported.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


I recently came to the conclusion that they won't brand Terrorism Islamic because they plan on broadening the scope of counter terrorism to Patriot groups within the US.


Not really a revelation on your part.

They already did that. Under Bush.

Patriot groups, environmental groups, animal rights' groups, etc.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I think its Obama’s ego that makes him deny the obvious.

Here’s something he can hold on to since he as president does absolutely nothing, exerts no power, he has none so here his stubbornness is a display of the flimsy power as president he has left

Plus he contradicts himself.

He claims its no big thing

THEN CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS...

Obama might as well for the rest of his administration have Beyonce and JZ over every night and golf on the weekend at the White House since he does NOTHING as president.

Obama is a man of little emotional intelligence. He gets mad at Trump for the wrong reasons.

THEY JUST MURDERED OUR PEOPLE AND HE GETS MAD AT TRUMP

He’s got ego intelligence

Obama better be careful he may cost Hillary the election with stupid speeches like the one he gave today



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It would undermine their payoffs over the years.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Hello all,

I would like to throw an idea out there for you.

I recently came to the conclusion that they won't brand Terrorism Islamic because they plan on broadening the scope of counter terrorism to Patriot groups within the US.

In my opinion maintaining a war on terror without branding it allows them to broaden the scope of investigation and possibility of groups they are allowed to use the power that comes with this terminology.

www.state.gov...



“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February 2015.


I do agree with this to an extent. However it's what version of Islam we are at war with not all of Islam. Islam is what brings them together not what turns them violent.

I still stand behind my initial assertion that they won't brand this version of terrorism so they can broaden the scope of power they can assert over anyone they choose to label a terrorist.
I agree wholeheartedly.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Because they are the main 2 that ushered it in ,nurtured it in its infancy, and protect it while it grows?
Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Hello all,

I would like to throw an idea out there for you.

I recently came to the conclusion that they won't brand Terrorism Islamic because they plan on broadening the scope of counter terrorism to Patriot groups within the US.

In my opinion maintaining a war on terror without branding it allows them to broaden the scope of investigation and possibility of groups they are allowed to use the power that comes with this terminology.

www.state.gov...



“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February 2015.


I do agree with this to an extent. However it's what version of Islam we are at war with not all of Islam. Islam is what brings them together not what turns them violent.

I still stand behind my initial assertion that they won't brand this version of terrorism so they can broaden the scope of power they can assert over anyone they choose to label a terrorist.


I guess you mean the fact Obama won't use the term 'radical Islam'? He's correct not to use that, just as the existence of groups such as the IRA, the UVF or the UDA doesn't make Christianity 'radical' or 'terrorist.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The faces u c running for office r the Tare or ists.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Socio economic conflict in Ireland existed for hundreds of years before the Reformation.

It had nothing to do with Religion.

It was economic.

Money.





top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join