President Obama said in September, 2014 that the Islamic State group was not Islamic, so on some level it should come as no surprise that his administration would deny the Islamic nature of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris. However, it is still worth chronicling for all the world to see.
The Washington Times reported Tuesday:
The White House tried to explain Tuesday why it has refused to use the term “radical Islam” in describing the Islamist terrorists responsible for last week’s Paris attacks and other acts of violence across the globe.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration doesn’t want to legitimize those terrorists or the “warped” view of Islam they hold. Also, Mr. Earnest said, the phrase “radical Islam” simply is not an accurate way to describe the enemies of the U.S., France and other nations across the globe.
“I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification they have cited that I think is illegitimate. They had invoked Islam to justify their attacks,” he told reporters. “I think what I’m trying to do is to describe to you what happened and what they did. These individuals are terrorists. … We have chosen not to use that label [of radical Islam] because it doesn’t seem to accurately describe what happened.”
Islamic warriors are permitted to use taqiyya (deception) in their war against infidels. Given that, we can reasonably assume that in terrorist cells and radical mosques throughout the world, men and women are listening to Josh Earnest and hysterically laughing.
Imagine a scenario where millions upon millions of Catholics all across the globe cheered on “Confessāre,” a radical organization that crucified non-Catholics and “baptized” its enemies in blood. What are the chances that the Obama administration would refer to such deeds as “radical Catholic terrorism”?
If Mr. Obama did refrain from calling Catholic terrorism by its true name, what are the chances that articles titled “Don’t beat up on Obama for avoiding the ‘C’ word,” would appear like the Los Angeles Times’ “Don’t beat up on Obama for avoiding the ‘I word'” did on Monday? The answer is obvious — and, deep down, even the Los Angeles Times knows that the White House’s Orwellian language games are embarrassing.
Michael McGough wrote Monday:
“When the president does try to parse the relationship between Islam and extremism he can sound silly. In an address to the nation last September, he said the self-described Islamic State wasn’t really Islamic. That prompted one critic to tweet: “I was unaware our president was a theologian with knowledge sufficient to declare that which is, and is not, Islamic. Now I know.”
Perhaps Bill Maher — a man I rarely agree with — said it best last Friday when he responded to Islamic terrorism in Paris: “When there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard.”
The truth hurts, and in this case Bill Maher has his finger directly upon the pulse of Truth. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama and millions of other Americans would rather lie to themselves instead of forcing 1.6 billion Muslims to have a serious conversation about their bad apple problem.