White House edits French President François Hollande reference to Islamist terrorism

Obama just can't do it, he just can't define who the terrorists are. Editing a video of a foreign leader who properly describes the current wave of violence across the globe as Islamic terrorism is just unbelievable. This just adds more fuel to my belief that Obama is more than a Muslim sympathizer, he's probably a closet Muslim. If anyone thinks he isn't then please prove me wrong.

[video=youtube;feieKx4jVxg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feieKx4jVxg[/video]

 

Did you forget all about Reverend Wright? Is Obama a Christian who hates America, or just a jihadist? You want it both ways. I want to be right wing and likeable, too, but it just can't be.

 

Rev Wright himself said Obama only went to that church for political appearances. And according to Obama's own mouth he didn't attend church services very often which he used as an excuse to say he never heard any of Wright's vile comments.

 

He's certainly either a Muslim sympathiser or a closet Muslim. And, at this point any liberal who tries to argue this is simply deluded and naive.

Jan 20, 2017 can't come fast enough.

 

Oh come on, you believe that crap? He sat in that church because a lot of black people are Christian and he needed to keep up appearances.

But, notice how he chose a racist Christian church.

 

And then alienate american muslims, the vast majority of them honest, hard workers. Yeah, that would probably make things better, huh?

That being said, censure is the work of the devil. I denounce it with you.

Aaah not this again? That dog died, rot and stank. But hey believe what you want; If proofs didn't work earlier, I don't expect them to work anymore now.

 

Guess who's quoted here? ...


1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

2. “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

3. “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.”

4. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

5. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

6. “Islam has always been part of America”

7. “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

8. “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

9. “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

10. “I made it clear that America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.”

11. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

12. “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

13. “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

14. “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

15. “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

16. “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

17. “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

18. “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

19. “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

20. “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

 

What, the truth hurts? Obama has no problem alienating conservatives and Christians who far out number Muslims. And if Obama is a Muslim, is there something wrong with that? By your reaction you seem to think so.

 

I'm not wasting any time trying to figure out what Obama thinks because what he thinks doesn't matter. What matters is that he is attempting to control the thoughts of all of you, and is going so far as to employ censorship.

All you posters -- does it not offend you that the White House is officially censoring?

Are we China?
Where are all the bloomin' liberals championing free speech and second amendment?

 

Anything he does alienates the neo-cons (true conservatives are no more); If he zigs, well he should have zagged. It is systematic: every insignificant event that does not put him in a good light is magnified to ridiculous proportions. It is so partisan an outlook that is it just not objective and credible for anyone but the choir. And he pisses only the Christians nobody likes, anyway - the extremist ones. But at least Obama has never been lectured by an acting pope.

I think History will be kind to Obama - especially if a buffoon succeeds him. He will be remembered as a good president, perhaps even better than Bill Clinton among the Democrat ones. Mark my words.

And, I don't care if he were a Muslim - but he isn't. Come on, even Trump has dropped out of this petty wild goose chase. To suspect he is also a woman would be just as relevant, IMO. The case is closed for me.

Even GWB would have never said that islam is the ennemy. It would be needlessly incendiary, and most of all, false.

 

salman Rushdie agrees:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...king-mistake-not-using-term-islamic-terrorism

Salman Rushdie: It's Mistake for Obama Not to Call It 'Islamic Terrorism'

By Lauretta Brown | April 1, 2016 | 11:39 AM EDT


Author Salman Rushdie. (AP)
(CNSNews.com) – Author Salman Rushdie--against whom Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death fatwa in 1989 because of his book "The Satanic Verses"--says that it is a miskake for President Barack Obama not to use the term "Islamic terrorism."

“It’s a mistake that the president is making to not use the term Islamic terrorism,” Rushdie said Wednesday during a question-and-answer session hosted by New York University’s Washington, D.C. Academic Center.



Rushdie was responding to a question from an audience member on whether he had changed his views since he had written a 2001 New York Times opinion piece entitled Yes, This Is About Islam.

“The answer is, no, they haven’t changed,” Rushdie said. “And I think, actually think it’s a mistake that the president is making to not use the term Islamic terrorism.”

“Because, of course, it’s not what a majority of Muslims would think or want,” Rushdie explained. “Of course, it’s a freakish manifestation that has grown up inside Islam. But to say that it’s not about Islam denies what the killers themselves always say.”

“You know, if you have a group of murderers who say--all of them--that they do it in the name of a particular prophet and a particular ideology, to say it’s not about that is just self-evidently evading the truth,” Rushdie said.

“The question is what has happened inside Islam that allowed this manifestation to grow up inside it,” he said. "And it's quite clear to me that the people who suffer most from Islamic terrorism are other Muslims."



Radical Islamist holding the Quran

and a rifle. (AP)
“Terrorism in the Muslim world impacts Muslims first and most viciously, and most Muslims are as hostile to it as most non-Muslims are,” Rushdie went on to say. “All of that is true. But it’s still true that this is something happening inside Islam, not separate from it, inside it, and that needs to be defeated. We must first call it by its name.”

Rushdie said he understood the rationale behind trying to avoid using the term Islamic terrorism “for virtuous reasons of not wishing to stigmatize a large number of innocent people with the deeds of the few.” But he concluded that “it’s just simply not true to avoid it and one of the things that certainly I think writers are in the business of doing is to call things by their true name.”

“There are reasons why this thing has been going on in the Muslim world and they are Muslim reasons, not all because the West is wrong,” Rushdie said. “We need to look at that. We need to call it by its name.”

Rushdie also referenced the Easter Sunday bombing in Lahore, Pakistan, saying, “There are very courageous writers and journalists, I mean, for example, after this recent Pakistani atrocity. There have been articles in Pakistan in which people have said we have allowed this thing to grow in our midst and it’s our fault, we have to do something about it. We can’t endlessly blame somebody else.”

Rushdie’s fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, published in 1988, sparked worldwide controversy over what some considered to be an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. In 1989, Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa for Rushdie’s death. Rushdie endured assassination attempts and lived under police protection for a time.

 

Most transparent administration EVER!

I can see right through them.

 

History won't be as kind to Obama as the media has been. He isn't a good president, he's mediocre. He could have been a good president if he had leadership abilities but sadly he doesn't. It's my way or I'll write an executive order with Obama and that's not leadership it's a tantrum.


I'm wondering if he picked up a few ideas from the Castros on how to control the message while he was visiting. He looked right at home down there with his communist brethren.

 

Yes, I'll give you the fact that he was supposed to be a lot more inspiring, but you've got to admit, Opposition to Obama in all chambers, for the basest partisanry, did not help. But yeah, he did disappoint me on a couple of subjects, including Gitmo. That being said, he looks quite impressive between GWB and Trump.

A little bit of socialism here and there would do you the greater good, seriously. Not become communist, mind you, but this dichotomy is, IMO, a cold war thing. Was the US created for the people or for private, borderless corporations? By giving power/money to these, you take it from the people.

And every politician tries to "control the message". It's what politics are about.

 

`
Who the truck does Obama think he's fooling? What a sob.

 

According to Obama he was the one the world was waiting for. The opposition he faced is in large part a result of his poor leadership. I know people don't like to hear that but it's true. And liberals have allowed him to get away with all kinds of power grabs they would have opposed under a republican. Well what do you think about President Trump having the power to force people to buy a product or service?

He censored the message of another because it conflicts with his own. I'm not surprised for a second a man like Obama would censor others.

 

How can naming the actions of a few Muslims terrorism alienate American muslims,?

 

Agreed. Doesn't mean he was bad, thought. Just not as good as we hoped: But we hoped big.

So you don't agree that he faced a systematic, partisan opposition? It kind of made consensus everywhere outside the neo-con circle.

Forcing a nation to adopt a health care legislation isn't the same as forcing a nation to go to war. Now is that leadership to force a nation to war with lies? Maybe. But it's a kind of leadership we can easily live without.

You want masters of censure? Try the jewish lobbies.

 

Isn't what he and GWB had said, that they were the actions of a few? Some of you guys are praying for a declaration of war on, then eradication, of islam. And once again, not even GWB has the necessary stupidity to do it.

And besides, I have doubts about the islamic legitimity of movements like ISIL. They are just as "good muslims" as the Army of God guys are "good christians".

 

GWB has nothing to do with the topic oh deflection king.

Who wants war with Islam? Radical Islam yes but Islam itself of course not. Stop repeating Salon type nonsense..

And btw you worry about alienating American muslims but have no problem with attacking Jews with your "jewish lobby" comment...

So easy to expose you.

 

Why do Obama apologists always attempt to hide his failures by complaining about Bush's bad leadership? Obama is responsible for finding a way to work with Congress, and calling them terrorists and bomb throwers doesn't help.

Sure the republicans stood in opposition but Obama has never tried to work with them, never. He sets the standard, he's the one charged with leading the group. He has poor leadership abilities, he talks a big game but he sucks. Of course his loyal followers won't be able to admit that until the emotional attachment has worn thin in a few years.

A quick study of leadership would show anyone Obama is a charismatic man who gets his power from division not unity. He prefers to use the stick when faced with politican opposition.

 

Deflection? How can you expect a moderate to do what even GWB didn't do even after 9-11? This is an exemple of blind partisanry.

A solid proportion of neocons want a (total) war with Islam, including on their own citizens. And what's wrong with Salon?

It isn't about making war on Jews, but rather cease to be someone else's whore - it's about respecting your own political independance and freedom of expression, be it from anyone, yes, even jews. I don't like the Saudi lobby neither, FYI, but at least they don't wage a war on freedom of expression in the US.

Well then, when does it begins?

 

GWB has nothing to do with the topic so yes its a deflection

Salon is a partisan rag.

Your claim about neo-cons is unfounded ( i cant stand them but come on)

Your disdain for Jews in a thread about Obama and his thoughts on Muslims exposes your clear bias.

 

True, to a certain measure, but neocons are a radical, extremist bunch of late. Probaly because the blame of a useless war, torture and wrecking the economy lay mainly on them, and they are eager to show that Dems (or "liberals") are just as disruptive as they were, even if they hurt the country by doing so. This sentiment is also exacerbated by barely-concealed racism, to be honest.

I will; Of course Obama is no Patton. But I don't think that even a Patton would have broken the dichotomy you guys are stuck in right now, I mean, just read some of the noecons' opinions here on the board; do they seem objective to you, regarding Obama? He is a muslim commie (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) is what they'll tell you, even before he took office.

Maybe - but he's not the one who gained the most from division.

 

It is no deflection; It is just the proof that what neocons wants from Obama they can't even get from the most radical neocons.

Ah so.

You say it's unfounded but that you can't stand them in the very same sentence with no punctuation whatsoever. So what is it?

Infantile knee-jerk reaction, the signs of a thin argumentation; I could turn the tables and ask you why do you hate Obama because he is black.

And disdain for jews? My candidate of choice in the presidential race is a jew. I am listening to a jewish artist right now. I just don't like those who are both trying to use me as a whore or tell me to shut up. Do you?