AG Holder: If Fox Didn’t Obsess Over Term ‘Radical Islam,’ ‘Theyd Have Nothing Else to Talk About’

[big_dog]

Source: Mediaite.com

Attorney General Eric Holder today dismissed the debate over the usage of the term “radical Islam” — specifically, why the Obama Administration refuses to use the term to describe militants such as ISIS — and called out Fox News for being overly preoccupied with the terminology.

“We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really,” Holder said with some exasperation at a National Press Club luncheon today in Washington, D.C. “If Fox didn’t talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me.”

Holder went on: Radical Islam, Islamic extremism — I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture. It doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be.

Holder went on to state that the most important conversation should center on what kind of actions the United States should take against ISIS, and not around the specific verbiage used in that conversation. “The terminology, it seems to me little to no impact on what ultimately we have to do,” he concuded.

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/holder-if-fox-didnt-obsess-over-term-radical-islam-theyd-have-nothing-else-to-talk-about/

[guillaumeb]

1. can we get back to talking about important issues

Like whether or not President Obama is a citizen or not?

[BumRushDaShow]

2. They had to find something other than "Benghazi!!111!1!!11". nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. Similar to Benghazi "scandal"

And the GOP and Faux News screaming on air every day about whether the President called it a "terrorist attack" soon enough

Or that the administration surmised that some of the anger may have come from an inciteful hate video originating from the US. (which actually turned out to be true)

As Hillary said with exasperation when she was dragged to testify "Who Cares?" (about these details) The important thing is what to do about it.

But as Holder implied, its Faux News bread and butter to just harp and blow up the trappings of a story if they can find any angle that they could exploit to rile up their viewers, instead of actually explaining the whole story.

[big_dog]

9. soon Faux will move on to the next Rovian poll tested meme

President Obama is not fighting a 'serious' war on ISIS etc

[bvf]

11. My very liberal 85-year-old father-in-law

watches Fox News regularly just to see what crap they're up to every day.

I told him recently I envy him his blood pressure--the guy's a rock.

[donnasgirl]

3. So what are we to call people who

Do things like this, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957471/ISIS-burn-45-people-death-captured-Iraqi-town-Baghdadi-Islamists-attack-homes-security-forces-families.html

Exactly what are we to call these animals?

[big_dog]

4. Gen. Patton used to call them the 'Barbarian Hordes' during Italy in 1944

seems like a decent catch all to me...

[procon]

5. Use whatever label YOU prefer... Holder's right; it changes nothing.

Fox needs conflict to boost profits, and nothing unites their viewers more than the prospect of a righteous holy war and the fantasy of a glorious crusade against “radical Islam”.

Would that the world could be sliced and diced so neatly and everything sorted into black and white piles with no nuanced shades of grey to trouble our knee jerking. That's never been true, and it's not as if any "one size fits all" word will clearly define all the ills that plague that wretched area, not with a such a large cast of evildoers and every faction spouting multiple complaints to excuse their inhumanity.

[big_dog]

7. exactly, Faux is paid to gin up conflict and get ratings

so the 'controversy' is a non-starter

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

12. Please, don't insult the animals

I can think of a few choice names for these members of the radical Islamist group, ISIS, but I shall refrain.

(However, I'm sure the above sentence will still piss off a few people here. )

[Midnight Writer]

15. Right. If we call them Islamic terrorists they will go away

Animals is not even strong enough. Monsters is better. But they are recruiting thousands of fighters who believe their religion is under assault. Why give them a recruiting "sound bite" of the USA's top officials blaming Islam? What will improve? There are nearly two billion (that's billion with a b) Islamic adherents in the world today. If they were indeed all fanatic jihadists, the globe would be on fire. Why fan the small flames?

[randr]

6. I have grown accustomed to the daily Faux

Whine de Jour.

[Roland99]

10. CNN has been playing that game as part of their 3 or 4 major stories repeated throughout the day

[Cha]

13. Thank you, AG Holder!

[freshwest]

14. BWAHAHA! This is what GOP News Central gets for lame ducking Holder.

And their Koch kin in the Senate are holding up LL's nomination, even though Holder agreed to stay on until he's replaced. I'm loving this, I hope he asks how their asparagus crop is doing everyday!

As to the reason that Obama won't go the religious labeling route, he refuses to give them the distinction of being one of the world's largest religions. And they really, really want to be seen as leaders of 23% of the world's population.:

http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_Muslims_are_there_in_the_world

'Daesh cutthroats' deserve no more respect than medieval mobs cheering witches getting burned alive. IMO, they are the modern version of the Randian hero, William Hicks. Look him up if you want to see the method.