No doubt it was under some pressure from Trump, but Hillary Clinton has finally used the term “radical Islam” when referring to their terrorist acts. She has gone further and it was long overdue. She has finally entered territory that Obama is terrified of coming close to. She has connected the terrorists with their mentors and financiers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait. There is an element of hypocrisy involved here, since the Saudis have also contributed large amounts to the Clinton Foundation and her campaign. Nevertheless, it was a much needed statement from Hillary.
HILLARY CLINTON: The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.
Jordan’s official news agency, Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States.
……. the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.
The connection with Saudi Arabia is something that Barack Obama is terrified to even think about – let alone mention. Instead he castigated Trump for focusing on the words “radical Islam”. But Trump had a point when he said that Obama was more angry with him (Trump) than with the shooter.
I am not sure whether it is a fear of being seen as an Islamophobe or a fear of offending Saudi Arabia which is more important to Obama. Probably they are equally important to him. But they are both fears. His 8 years in office have been dominated by his fears of taking actions. A sort of parlaysis by analysis. And Obama’s wilful denial (by omission) that “radical Islam” has to be confronted does not impress.
Whether the Orlando shooter was gay or not does not mitigate his actions. There are some gay commentators who seem more concerned about labelling the massacre a “homophobic” action – and suppressing any connection to radical Islam – just to win “brownie points” for the gay community (Owen Jones for example). But that is to miss the point. Equally trying to blame the US gun regulations is also missing the point. With the examples of Paris and Brussels, Obama knows that, but it is a convenient diversion and another excuse to avoid confronting radical Islamic terrorism.
Of course, all Muslims are not terrorists. But more terrorists are inspired by radical Islamic perversions than can be ignored. All Buddhist monks are not bigots, but many in Myanmar (and in Thailand and in Sri Lanka) are and are too many to be ignored or denied. Far too many of the “Hindu God-men” are bigots and perverts.
To confront religious extremism and fanaticism is not an attack on the religion. Obama needs, at least, to be able to distinguish that. (Of course, no organised religion whatsoever ought to exist and impose its opinions on anybody — but that is a different story).