FOLLOWING the Fort Hood terrorist attack in 2009, in which 13 people were killed by Islamic gunman Nidal Hasan, the US government under President Barack Obama classified the incident as an episode of “workplace violence”.

The reasons for this included concerns that obtaining a conviction may be more difficult if the attack was classified as terrorism, but it remains hard to avoid the view that there was also an element of oversensitivity involved. Obama, after all, has never been the most direct speaker on the subject of fundamentalist Islamic brutality.

In the wake of the appalling San Bernardino slaughter, which saw 14 people murdered by two Islamic extremists, Obama’s attitude seems finally to have shifted. Speaking of the two killers during his latest Oval Office speech, Obama said: “It is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalisation, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.”

Obama also condemned Islamic State, the group to which at least one of the San Bernardino killers swore allegiance following the attack: “ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death.”

That final phrase will spark recognition among Australian observers, many of whom were inclined to be dismissive when it was used by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Perhaps now, when used by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, it will gain some measure of acceptability

Also worth noting is that President Obama plainly outlined that “an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities”, which Obama identified as “a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse”.

His remedy: “Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.”

Again, Australian observers will be reminded of comments along very similar lines by senior Liberals Josh Frydenberg and Peter Dutton, among others, who have variously and accurately pointed out that a “problem within Islam” is at the core of ongoing terror attacks.

These remarks were not nearly as controversial as they were initially depicted. Indeed, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull should be emboldened by President Obama’s new-found clarity to himself adopt stronger and more decisive attitudes on terrorism.

Meanwhile, Obama’s speech also included a small but telling change of view on the Fort Hood attack. Following all those years defining the murderous assault as “workplace violence”, Obama said: “As we’ve become better at preventing complex multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turn to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society. It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009.”

There you have it. The Fort Hood atrocity was committed by a terrorist. If Obama can change his mind and finally state the obvious, there is still hope for politicians worldwide — including in Australia.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/obama-wakes-up-to-muslim-threat/story-fni0cwl5-1227636918029

Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:49am:

Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade.

he wouldnt dare..Leigh Sales ABC sat him on his BUM...

so not much chance of that happening.. ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:49am:

Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade.

Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam?

The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc.

No one is trying to paint Islam with the same brush as ISIS. But too many from the Left are falling over themselves to not say anything that links ISIS to Islam. It's an undeniable fact. It's like trying to separate Christianity from the Crusades. Not going to happen.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:59am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. No one is trying to paint Islam with the same brush as ISIS. But too many from the Left are falling over themselves to not say anything that links ISIS to Islam. It's an undeniable fact. It's like trying to separate Christianity from the Crusades. Not going to happen.

If it's an undeniable fact you'll be able to provide the necessary examples.  I eagerly await.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 6:01am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:59am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. No one is trying to paint Islam with the same brush as ISIS. But too many from the Left are falling over themselves to not say anything that links ISIS to Islam. It's an undeniable fact. It's like trying to separate Christianity from the Crusades. Not going to happen. If it's an undeniable fact you'll be able to provide the necessary examples.  I eagerly await.

You didn't even read the article, did you? It's in the very first sentence!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 6:07am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 6:01am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:59am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. No one is trying to paint Islam with the same brush as ISIS. But too many from the Left are falling over themselves to not say anything that links ISIS to Islam. It's an undeniable fact. It's like trying to separate Christianity from the Crusades. Not going to happen. If it's an undeniable fact you'll be able to provide the necessary examples.  I eagerly await. You didn't even read the article, did you? It's in the very first sentence!

Because it misleads like every daily telegraph dumbass opinion does.
Obama called fort hood a terrorist attack in 2009.  It was the department of defence that had the trial officially as a workplace disputed, because military code didn't have a way to charge for terrorist attack.

http://m.tucson.com/news/national/terror-act-or-workplace-violence-hasan-trial-raises-sensitive-issue/article_be513c51-a35d-5b4f-b3a0-13654f019ea6.html?mobile_touch=true



So, any actual examples where the "left" refuses to acknowledge terrorism?  So far it's the right that has been quick to defend terrorist acts that haven't been perpetrated by a Muslim.  But the left, largely rational about religion, is happy to call terrorism when terrorism occurs.  We don't discriminate based on religion, like your loony right wing colleagues do.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:59am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. No one is trying to paint Islam with the same brush as ISIS. But too many from the Left are falling over themselves to not say anything that links ISIS to Islam. It's an undeniable fact. It's like trying to separate Christianity from the Crusades. Not going to happen.

Or trying to separate ignorance from conservatism?

That's not happening, either.

Got to disagree with you armchair

Obama is saying "nothing's changed, Trust me"

His immediate legislative change is gun control

Paris has the toughest gun control in the world and they've had 3 attacks in 12 months

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc.

condemnation is unlikely to work.
i have stood at the edge of a paddock and condemned the weeds but, alas, it proved ineffective.
only by going in a rooting out every last one did i achieve satisfaction

Obama says we are "at war with ISIS"

Clinton is says we are "in conflict with ISIS"

Tells me a President Clinton believes this is not that important

Maqqa wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:09am:

Got to disagree with you armchair Obama is saying "nothing's changed, Trust me" His immediate legislative change is gun control Paris has the toughest gun control in the world and they've had 3 attacks in 12 months

So not 362 attacks in 12 months? Ok.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:17am:

Obama says we are "at war with ISIS" Clinton is says we are "in conflict with ISIS" Tells me a President Clinton believes this is not that important

The policy is where it counts.

What are the policy differences?  Or are you a trump, and just think saying things like, "we are going to go in so touch!" Is enough?

aquascoot wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. condemnation is unlikely to work. i have stood at the edge of a paddock and condemned the weeds but, alas, it proved ineffective. only by going in a rooting out every last one did i achieve satisfaction

So thanks for agreeing this thread is yet another pointless dribble.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

aquascoot wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 7:13am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. condemnation is unlikely to work. i have stood at the edge of a paddock and condemned the weeds but, alas, it proved ineffective. only by going in a rooting out every last one did i achieve satisfaction So thanks for agreeing this thread is yet another pointless dribble.

Trying to "talk" to ISIS or to "talk" about ISIS is pointless dribble.

If a brown snake rears up to strike me, i wouldnt consider talking would be a good option.
I would tend to go the full Putin on it.
Talk is for beta males

aquascoot wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 7:25am: aquascoot wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 7:13am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:57am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 8th, 2015 at 5:49am: Time for Turnbull to wake up and start to call a spade a spade. Another stupendous article.  When has any politician not condemned Isis?  When has anyone said that Isis doesn't believe in a radicalised interpretation of Islam? The difference, that numnuts do not understand, is that people with any intelligence refuse to generalise IS to mean all Muslims.  Just like no one says  extremist pro lifers represent all Christians.  Or paedo priests represent all Christians.  Etc. condemnation is unlikely to work. i have stood at the edge of a paddock and condemned the weeds but, alas, it proved ineffective. only by going in a rooting out every last one did i achieve satisfaction So thanks for agreeing this thread is yet another pointless dribble. Trying to "talk" to ISIS or to "talk" about ISIS is pointless dribble. If a brown snake rears up to strike me, i wouldnt consider talking would be a good option. I would tend to go the full Putin on it. Talk is for beta males

Don't tell me, I agree.  Tell armchair this.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:17am:

Obama says we are "at war with ISIS" Clinton is says we are "in conflict with ISIS" Tells me a President Clinton believes this is not that important

It tells me Clinton isn't given to hyperbole.