Case in point: A lot has been made, said and written about the president's choice of words when it comes to terrorism. We can go back to the Benghazi incident and see that this is a running theme with Republicans and other Obama detractors. It is their opinion that by Obama "failing" to classify certain incidents as "terrorist acts" that it takes away from the seriousness of these incidents. The Charlie Hebdo incident was another case in which Obama was lambasted for initially not saying that the attack in France was a "terrorist attack". And as of late, Obama has chosen to not classify ISIS (or ISIL) as "radical Islamists", instead opting to refer to them as "violent extremists". Some politicians and critics have said his choice of words, or lack thereof, shows his inability to lead this country. Others have said it shows his unwillingness to take a hardline stance on Islamic terrorism. Obama has said that in not calling ISIS radical Islamists or Islamist terrorists, it separates them from the whole of the Islamic faith, therefore not giving the impression that all Muslims are terrorists and that Islam is a violent religion. He has said that his objectives in combating ISIS is "not a war against Islam" but a war against the extremists who claim to be doing the work of Allah. While one may not agree with whatever strategies that Obama intends to lay out, logically one can or should agree that Obama has the right idea in mind in not wanting to make this about a war against a particular religion. If that was the case, then we'd have a terrible situation that could be likened to the Holocaust. But no one on the political right seems to see the wisdom in Obama's choice of words.
Here is why I personally believe that the terminology one chooses to use is trivial when compared to the ideals those words may represent. Take the example of a person who commits a crime. There are a number of crimes on could commit, and the penalties vary depending on the crime. But if the crime can be proven to have been committed by the individual, then it doesn't matter if you acknowledge the person as a killer, burglar, rapist, etc.. That person committed said crime and the only distinction any of those labels will hold is the type of punishment the crime comes with. If a person or group of people commit "acts of terror" which by definition is an act causing "extreme fear to coerce people" or "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear", not labeling them as "terrorists" doesn't somehow dispel what they are actually doing, nor does labeling them as such improve ones chances at stopping them. It's all just terminology, which is used to instill a certain image or attitude in others so as to persuade them to follow a certain ideal. If you put a face on terror (like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein), then you put fear in those who associate those individuals with things like 9/11 or suicide bombers. But today's "terrorists" are "faceless", in that many currently are operating as individuals or small groups. The Al-Queda's and ISIS' are now more of an ideology these days. Individuals or "lone wolfs" as they are being called, are following these ideals and committing acts on their own. Whether you call them terrorists, Islamic radicals or violent extremists or not, their acts speak for themselves. What you call them doesn't matter, it's how they are stopped that's more important anyway.
But critics of the president say terminology and solutions go hand in hand when it comes to the new war on terror. I say, it's political branding. You have to put a name on something that you want to sell to the American public, on either side of the aisle. Healthcare reform was branded "Obamacare" so that those who didn't agree with Obama's political agenda would instantly cringe whenever they heard that term and automatically view it as "un-American" or unconstitutional. Politically, that was a great strategy. Republicans branded Obama as a socialist due to the fact that the word carries a negative connotation. But the true definition of socialism is a series of ideologies aimed at providing opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential, therefore giving every citizen an equal chance at prosperity. Or, at least that's what it is in theory. Socialism used to be linked to communism, especially during the Cold War era and the Soviet Union regime years. Nowadays, it's linked to the ideals of an American president who is thought to be everything from the worst president ever to the anti-Christ. And let's not forget, he just happens to not be white. There is currently a US Senator named Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" and has been serving since 2007. Before today I had never heard of him. Maybe you have, or not.
Here's another example of an ideal carrying much more weight than what is actually said. Rudy Giuliani recently made headlines by saying that the president " didn't love America", saying that Obama often criticizes America "much more often than other America presidents". This came on the heels of comments made by the president in which he reminded American Christians, hell bent on labeling terrorists through their Islamic religion, that a lot of terrible things were done in the name of God by Christians including the Crusades, the Inquisition (better known as the Spanish Inquisition in which Jews and Muslims were told to convert or leave or risk persecution) and here in this country, slavery and the Jim Crow segregated South. When confronted on whether or not his comments were racist, Rudy swung for the fences...and missed by saying this:
“Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people. This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.”
That is an interesting defense because in the speech he made when he said Obama didn't love America he said that the president "wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country". So regardless of what the former NYC mayor actually said, word for word, the connotation was made so as to disparage the president as Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter that what he said was, above all other things, pretty damn stupid. What matters is the idea that he got across to those who respect what he says. This type of political pandering is dangerously close to the ideals of terrorism, if you really think about it. While terrorists use fear and violence to coerce others to follow their lead, many politicians use fear through rhetoric to do the same exact thing. Negative campaign ads often put political opponents in a scary light to give the viewer the idea that this particular person will take things away from voters or will take away from the values that this country was based on. If the viewer believes what the ad is portraying to be true, that likely will influence them at the polls. More times than not, the words of the ad or the politician ring hollow because the ideal was based on getting support for a agenda and the words were just meant to entice the listener, reader, etc.. While the words themselves play a huge role in influencing people, voters or what have you, nitpicking at what a politician or average person says or doesn't say is trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Anyone who experienced 9/11, watches the news or is familiar with the conflicts this country has had in the Middle East over the past 20 years knows exactly what a terrorist is and what terrorist acts are. Obama and any other world leader doesn't have to come out and provoke these groups by making a marked verbal attack on Islamic or any other culture and faith. What Obama says has no effect at all on whatever strategies the administration decides they will put into play to combat any potential threat. What Obama said about the way people view "violent extremists" in relation to Christians is true. The scope of religion in conflict is narrowed down to those on either religious side. Anything done in the name of one's religion or God is "righteous" in their eyes and one will do anything to accomplish those goals, whether morally right or not. That's the way these extremists need to be viewed because that is the root of their actions. Whatever you want to call them is irrelevant. What is done to stop them is more important.
