New York Post Puts A Blindfold On Obama In Outrageous Front Page

[still_one]

"The New York Post's front page blasted President Barack Obama on Thursday for not using phrases such as "Islamic terror" to describe militant groups like ISIS."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/new-york-post-obama-blindfold_n_6710814.html

The president explained to these idiots that ISIS and other terrorist groups do not represent Islam.

Of course the media doesn't get comprehend the distinction.

I would like to see a headline that says, "racist media distorts the facts again".

[YarnAddict]

1. They don't represent Islam

But they are terrorizing, burning, and beheading in the name of their brand of Islam. It is not out of line to call them "Islamic terrorists." See this article in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?fb_ref=Default

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

5. +1

[still_one]

7. Then it would be appropriate to refer to Baruch Goldstein as a "Jewish terrorist", and Meir Kahane

along with the Kach political party?

However, that is not how our media described it at the time. They described him as a mass murderer, and part of an extremist group, but never used the word "Jewish terrorist"

In actuality it is probably appropriate in both cases, as long as the distinction is made that they do not represent the mainstream religion

[Dawgs]

15. +1. This is only an issue because Obama (and team) decided to start the practice of not saying it.

Muslims are adults and get the difference between Islam and Islamic terrorists/extremists.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Yes....if they're called Islamic terrorists rather than terrorists

We could declare victory and go home.



Who the fuck cares what they're called.

Terrorists are terrorists.

Obama is dropping bombs on them. Will the bombs suddenly kill more terrorists if Obama refers to them as Islamic terrorists?

This whole thing is fucking stupid. It's right wing bullshit that means nothing.

[spanone]

2. it appears our media is promoting a holy war.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

4. BBC Radio calls them radical Islamists

and refers to ordinary folks as Muslims.

It works for me.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. And if Obama also called them radical Islamists....

how would that change things?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

24. It's what they are.

He doesn't have to use the term, but it's ridiculous to spend so much time denying it, as well.

Imo, of course.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Actually, he isn't spending much time on it

It's the right wingers who are so focused on this inane bullshit.

It means nothing.

[JaneyVee]

3. What if Obama has a reason which cannot be disclosed for...

Not calling it Islamic terrorism? Perhaps he knows something we don't know.

[C_U_L8R]

6. Of course, it's a Murdoch rag

He'll do any sleazy stunt to make money
off of sucker conservatives and halfwits.

[n2doc]

8. Well, the NYP doesn't represent Journalism either n/t

[ck4829]

9. Why do they get outraged over Obama not saying "Islamic terror", but not saying "Sunni terror"?

Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, any of the groups in Africa, etc. are all Sunni fundamentalists, and they actually despise Shia Muslims. And really, every group that the US has or has had a direct boots on the ground conflict with since 2001 is a hardline Sunni group.

Shia Islam is used as the ideology in only a couple of recognized terrorist groups, Hezbollah for example.

There are also absolutely no known terrorist groups that use Sufi Islam as the ideological backing, nor any smaller schools of Islamic thought.

Just find it strange they don't pay any attention to that level of what is going on, and it seems like they are just looking at the lowest common denominator.

[still_one]

10. Your distinction is appropriate, but I suspect the media intentionally does

Not want to make that distinction

[Fred Sanders]

12. Labelling games are ludicrous. The focus on solutions and not labelling is giving Fox a sad.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Rupert Murdoch wants a Holy War....just like ISIS does...who is the most dangerous enemy?

[fadedrose]

14. It looks that way, and that's what ISIS wants

ISIS and Murdoch agree on at least that.

[fadedrose]

13. The Post should look into what ISIS really wants..

The President could provide us with more facts (and he speaks today and may give more), but their printing that he's lying about what he said is so wrong.

[muntrv]

16. Based on that logic, we should call the Ku Klux Klan Christian terrorists.

[still_one]

17. Actually that is the problem, selective labeling

Bill Maher talks out of both sides of his mouth when he does his labels, and the weakest argument he uses is that Chritians haven't done it sine the crusade which is not correct. Your example is one of many.

[Enrique]

18. i've seen outrageous NY Post covers

that isn't one of them.

Unless I'm missing something, what is outrageous about putting a blindfold on him?

[still_one]

19. I think it is the implication that he turns a blind eye toward terrorism

because he doesn't condemn Islam

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. Is it Islamic? Yes. Is it terrorist? Yes.

That is plain language describing what it is. To deny that, is to blindfold oneself.

It's trivial, the point wasn't worth making, it doesn't change reality. At the same time, making a point out of THAT is trivial too. Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

[Enrique]

21. there is a good strategic reason not to say it

Obama put it well in his speech at the summit "ISIS is desperate for legitimacy". Obama's word choice is about a strategy to defeat ISIS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. The New York Post is to journalism what arsenic is to nutrition.

[guillaumeb]

26. so there is no safe level

of Post exposure?

Conservatives do not do nuance well. Every threat is an existential threat, whether bird flu, H1N1 virus, measles, Islam, impotence, Communists, male pattern baldness,you name it. All need screaming headlines by the print media and breathless, dramatic talking heads for broadcast media.

Until the next "greatest" threat comes along.