• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Obama: Religion is not responsible for terrorism

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...countering-violent-extremism-speech/23631625/

President Obama said Thursday he doesn't use terms like Islamic extremism because doing so would promote the false idea of a Western war with Islam, which would help extremists recruit more terrorists.

No religion is responsible for terrorism — people are responsible for violence and terrorism," Obama told delegates at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.

Obama also said military force alone will not defeat terrorism, and the nation must work with local communities to reduce the influence of those who advocate violent extremism.
"They are not religious leaders," Obama said. "They are terrorists."
He also said: "We are not at war with Islam — we are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

In his summit remarks, Obama cited the "fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits" about the words that used should be used to "describe and frame this challenge" of violent extremism.
Groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda "try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam," Obama said, but "we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie."
Obama also said Muslim communities have responsibilities to confront the abuse of religion.
"Of course, the terrorists do not speak for a billion Muslims who reject their ideology," Obama said. "They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God, represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism."


The nation must stay true to its heritage of tolerance and diversity and not target specific religious groups.
"It will take time," he said. "This is a generational challenge,"

Obama laying down the truth smack down as he keeps on defining his legacy as his presidency comes to an end


The best qoute
On Wednesday he sought to explain his wording, declaring al Qaeda and ISIS "desperate for legitimacy."

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam," he said. "We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politics/obama-speech-extremism-terror-summit/
 

dorkkaos

Member
Definitely agree. Extremism and terrorism will exist, if religion didn't exist, they'll find a different justification and will just find a way to blame the other party.
 
19dzw4i2w3nhegif.gif


Obama speaking truths. Too bad people will keep on blaming muslims just because terrorists claim they're simply following the koran
 
it is actually possible to be both a religious leader and a terrorist

religion isn't always good (just like how it isn't always bad)
 

SSPssp

Member
Guns don't kill people either. I understand his reasoning but its just a meaningless statement.

Edit: beaten dammit
 

SSPssp

Member
It's not meaningless when we've got mosques burning and muslims being murdered.

This won't convince anyone full of hate. What might convince them is if they trust that Obama can handle terrorism. That might be impossible though.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
What ISIS Really Wants

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
...
Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it.
...
But focusing on them to the exclusion of ideology reflects another kind of Western bias: that if religious ideology doesn’t matter much in Washington or Berlin, surely it must be equally irrelevant in Raqqa or Mosul. When a masked executioner says Allahu akbar while beheading an apostate, sometimes he’s doing so for religious reasons.
...
But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.”
...
He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”
All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”
The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.
...
the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”
 
I mean, I guess I agree, but I feel like if religion had been snuffed out already there'd be nothing to pervert.

Saying that, terrorists gonna terrorize, they'd find another reason.
 

Oriel

Member
ISIS and AQ don't represent Islam for sure. But that's not to say they don't draw inspiration for their atrocities straight from the Koran. The clue is in the name "Islamic extremism". ISIS are Islamic, whether the letsgetalongists like it or not.
 

Game4life

Banned
guns don't kill people

Pretty much the same analogy. Religion is absolutely one significant cause of terrorism, subjugation of women rights etc etc.. Of course we cant expect Leaders of countries to be frank about these matters because they need votes so they have to wishy washy.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
This won't convince anyone full of hate. What might convince them is if they trust that Obama can handle terrorism. That might be impossible though.

Those people won't trust him because

a) there's morons who think he is muslim

and

b) they're morons who are full of hate

People have been using religion as a cover to do horrible things since it the inception of the concept of a god. That people need to be told this is just insane.
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
I somewhat agree. Terrorism is a result of unstable crazy people. However I don't feel that Religion gets off free and clear here. Religion is the uniting force for unstable crazy people to find common ground and then decide to defend that institution that bonds them at all costs.
 

JordanN

Banned
President Obama said Thursday he doesn't use terms like Islamic extremism because doing so would promote the false idea of a Western war with Islam, which would help extremists recruit more terrorists.

This guy gets it.
 

Jinkies

Member
Perhaps not solely responsible, but religion is uniquely suited to be a strong impetus for any kind of act. The concept of an afterlife was, in part, invented precisely for warfare; soldiers who do not fear death are more effective.

It can't be replaced by any kind of non-deific ideology as simply as some purport to believe (normally in defense of religion as a concept).
 

Tesseract

Banned
Pretty much the same analogy. Religion is absolutely one significant cause of terrorism, subjugation of women rights etc etc.. Of course we cant expect Leaders of countries to be frank about these matters because they need votes so they have to wishy washy.

yup, it's a damn shame. worse still is that people agree with him, like all actions occur in a vacuum.
 

xbhaskarx

Member

This bit really shows how well Obama and his administration understand the situation:

If we had identified the Islamic State’s intentions early, and realized that the vacuum in Syria and Iraq would give it ample space to carry them out, we might, at a minimum, have pushed Iraq to harden its border with Syria and preemptively make deals with its Sunnis. That would at least have avoided the electrifying propaganda effect created by the declaration of a caliphate just after the conquest of Iraq’s third-largest city. Yet, just over a year ago, Obama told The New Yorker that he considered ISIS to be al-Qaeda’s weaker partner. “If a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” the president said.

Our failure to appreciate the split between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and the essential differences between the two, has led to dangerous decisions. Last fall, to take one example, the U.S. government consented to a desperate plan to save Peter Kassig’s life. The plan facilitated—indeed, required—the interaction of some of the founding figures of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, and could hardly have looked more hastily improvised.

It entailed the enlistment of Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, the Zarqawi mentor and al-Qaeda grandee, to approach Turki al-Binali, the Islamic State’s chief ideologue and a former student of Maqdisi’s, even though the two men had fallen out due to Maqdisi’s criticism of the Islamic State. Maqdisi had already called for the state to extend mercy to Alan Henning, the British cabbie who had entered Syria to deliver aid to children. In December, The Guardian reported that the U.S. government, through an intermediary, had asked Maqdisi to intercede with the Islamic State on Kassig’s behalf.

Maqdisi was living freely in Jordan, but had been banned from communicating with terrorists abroad, and was being monitored closely. After Jordan granted the United States permission to reintroduce Maqdisi to Binali, Maqdisi bought a phone with American money and was allowed to correspond merrily with his former student for a few days, before the Jordanian government stopped the chats and used them as a pretext to jail Maqdisi. Kassig’s severed head appeared in the Dabiq video a few days later.

Maqdisi gets mocked roundly on Twitter by the Islamic State’s fans, and al‑Qaeda is held in great contempt for refusing to acknowledge the caliphate. Cole Bunzel, a scholar who studies Islamic State ideology, read Maqdisi’s opinion on Henning’s status and thought it would hasten his and other captives’ death. “If I were held captive by the Islamic State and Maqdisi said I shouldn’t be killed,” he told me, “I’d kiss my ass goodbye.”

Kassig’s death was a tragedy, but the plan’s success would have been a bigger one. A reconciliation between Maqdisi and Binali would have begun to heal the main rift between the world’s two largest jihadist organizations. It’s possible that the government wanted only to draw out Binali for intelligence purposes or assassination. (Multiple attempts to elicit comment from the FBI were unsuccessful.) Regardless, the decision to play matchmaker for America’s two main terrorist antagonists reveals astonishingly poor judgment.
 

cDNA

Member
Obama is the president of a nation with million of Muslim, plus many of the USA allies are Muslim majority nations. The idea that Obama should bash Islam or should not be careful with their words is stupid. Why people can understand something that is so obvious?
 

vypek

Member
Ask yourself: If religion didn't exist or stopped existing, would terrorism still exist?

I think at the maximum, religion would be partially responsible or at least used by zealots to try and rationalize what they are doing.
 

injurai

Banned
No, but it's what makes good intending people find a morale ground in terrorism. Plenty of warlords know exactly what they are doing and couldn't care less. Civil instability is what creates the conditions for terrorism to exist. But it's religious fundamentalism that incorrectly labels the problem and finds justification for it's heinous crimes.

It's a nuance of different combinations of degraded culture and stability, mixed with suspension of reason for mystical supposition creates a warped perception of reality. Religion (essentially codified faith in supernatural dynamics) can very much compel people to do good, even if it's foundation is merely conjecture.

Religion certainly doesn't get a free pass, because it very much is at times justification. It's how people wholeheartedly commit themselves to these causes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom