Mediaboss Marketing

President Obama said Wednesday that using the term Islamic extremism only grants terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State the legitimacy they seek as he called for a broader effort to prevent alienated young people from taking up violent causes.

In his most direct response to date of critics of his rhetorical choices, Obama said the Islamic State and Al Qaeda had been successful in recruiting disaffected Muslims by portraying themselves as holy warriors in defense of Islam, a notion he called a lie.

They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam, Obama said.

The presidents remarks ended the second day of the White Houses Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, which is bringing together dozens of local-level law enforcement groups, community leaders and academics as well as representatives from 60 countries on a long-simmering issue recently thrust to the forefront.

The White House has sought to craft a message that will prevent young people from flocking to become fighters for Islamic State, and to prevent homegrown attacks like those that have hit Europe in recent weeks.

Obama administration officials said the summit was about tackling root causes, such as economic opportunity and education, with no immediate responses or quick fixes. While the White House announced some new policies and commitments from participating countries, including the appointment of a new senior-level coordinator on violent extremism at the Department of Homeland Security, the summit was primarily aimed at having a conversation.

In his remarks, Obama also talked up programs in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Boston as models for reaching what officials describe as vulnerable communities in the U.S.

These are partnerships that bring people together in the spirit of mutual respect, he said.

For weeks before the summit convened Tuesday, Obama has been criticized for not explicitly labeling the problem Islamic extremism, relying on the phrase violent extremism.

Republicans accused the president of tiptoeing around the issue out of an apparent reluctance to offend Muslims. Some seized on Obamas use of the word randomly in describing the attack last month on a kosher deli in Paris as evidence of the presidents refusal to acknowledge the anti-Semitic motivations in the killings. When Obama spoke of the threat of violence in the name of religion without specifically citing Islam, critics saw him dodging.

Follow this link:
Obama calls for global effort against spread of extremist ideas

To the editor: President Obama, despite facing criticism, has been adamant in making a distinction between Islam and extremism. His words have brought much comfort to Muslims like me in the United States, living in the shadow of Islamophobia. ("President Obama: Our fight against violent extremism," Op-Ed, Feb. 17)

Recent hate crimes toward Muslims are against the American values of freedom and justice. No one should have to die for the way they look or whom they worship.

I am grateful to our president for realizing the importance of separating religion from extremism. Now we can focus on the true causes of terrorism and get a little bit closer in trying to eradicate it.

Huma Munir, San Antonio

..

To the editor: Applying a term like "violent extremism" to today's worldwide Islamic terrorism indicates that our president goes to great lengths to avoid the use of the term "Islamic terrorism."

It is quite obvious that Obama has either not quite understood the nature of this menace or is too politically correct to call it by its real name. In other words, Obama has not even identified this problem and is therefore unable to formulate a solution for it.

Whether it is political correctness or Obama's denial of reality, in either case it appears that we do not have a president who is quite capable of tackling, this complex issue.

Joseph Azizi, Beverly Hills

..

See the rest here:
Obama's reluctance to say 'Islamic terrorism'

President Obama formally asked Congress to authorize military operations against Islamic State, seeking to put lawmakers on record in support of a Middle East conflict that seems likely to intensify in coming months and last beyond the end of his time in office.

After promising for years to curb the parameters of his own powers to wage war, Obama proposed a resolution Wednesday that sets relatively few hard limits on him or the next president. It also would not touch the post-Sept. 11 authorization to use the military against international terrorism, which he has warned leaves the U.S. in a permanent state of war.

The request will open a potentially lengthy argument over U.S. involvement in the fight against militant Islamic groups in Iraq and Syria. That debate is likely to pit the president against his fellow Democrats, many of whom are deeply skeptical of military action.

The request comes as the Pentagon prepares for a stepped-up period in the fight against Islamic State militants. Iraqi government forces are expected this year to begin trying to wrest back major cities from extremist control, including Mosul, Iraq's second-largest.

U.S. commanders have made clear they're likely to ask Obama to authorize American troops to take part in that operation, although not as front-line combat troops. U.S. personnel might serve in roles such as advisors and spotters to guide airstrikes.

Obama contends that he already has authority for such deployments under the 2001 authorization permitting use of force against Al Qaeda, which once had ties to Islamic State, as well as the 2002 sanctioning of the Iraq war. Because of that legal authority, the new proposal would not add to his ability to order troops into harm's way. But, the White House argues, it would force lawmakers to assume more of the responsibility and political heat for a conflict with no end in sight.

As he faces a new Republican-controlled Congress and an ever-shrinking window for action, Obama said it was time to give troops a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.

As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force, Obama said Wednesday.

The resolution, which would expire in three years, sets no geographic boundaries on U.S. operations against Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, and uses just five words to limit the type of operations Obama or his successor could order.

A president could not deploy U.S. troops for enduring offensive ground combat operations, the measure states, using a phrase the White House acknowledged was intentionally fuzzy to allow flexibility.

See the original post:
Obama asks Congress for 'flexibility' in fight against Islamic State

President Obama called on lawmakers Friday to pass tougher laws to protect against cyberattacks, and he also aimed part of his plea at business leaders whose help he needs in the fight.

Just before he signed an executive order to promote information-sharing between the private sector and the government, Obama spoke of a "spirit of collaboration" that he maintains would help all sides respond quickly to an attack.

"This has to be a shared mission," Obama said. Because computer networks are held largely by the private sector, "government can't do this alone," he said.

"But the private sector can't do it alone," either, he said during an address at a cybersecurity summit at Stanford University.

A major hurdle standing in the way of collaboration is a lack of trust on the part of business leaders, particularly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations about how the government tried to use private companies' systems in spying.

Tech companies have bolstered their security to keep both hackers and government authorities out of private data.

The resulting tension burst into view in the debate over decisions by Apple Inc. and Google Inc. to encrypt data automatically on some of the software they produce.

The moves drew criticism from top U.S. law enforcement and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who complained that it would make such data as call records or photos transferred on an iPhone inaccessible to law enforcement or intelligence officials who want it for investigations.

"You do want the private sector and the government to work together, and they are. But at the same time, there is this huge area where they're not," said Daniel Castro, a senior analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a Washington think tank.

Until those tensions are eased, he said, "we won't have a coherent cybersecurity policy."

More:
Obama seeks help from Congress, tech industry to fight cyberattacks

Israelis are increasingly convinced President Obama is meddling in their upcoming election, and some observers predict the White House's alleged effort to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu could indeed wind up tipping the scales in favor of the prime minister.

Former Obama campaign workers have launched campaign teams throughout Israel that experts say are indirectly funded with U.S. State Department grants and which are solely focused on ousting the prime minister, who has a well-chronicled adversarial relationship with Obama. While there is no concrete evidence Obama is personally pulling strings to undermine Netanyahu in the March 17 vote, polls show a strong majority of Israelis believe he is.

"You cannot prove a direct link, said Danny Ayalon, Israels ambassador to the U.S. from 2002-2006. But there is a dotted line. So a lot of Israelis...connect the dots.

Ayalon said Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the start of the Obama administrations election push against Netanyahu when he reportedly warned EU envoys at a private late December luncheon that theyd be helping the Israeli leader and the political right if they voted on a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN at that time.

Then came news that the U.S.-based nonprofit OneVoice Movement until recently headed by a member of U.S. Democratic administrations and recipient of some $350,000 in recent State Department grants had entered into a partnership with the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign itself guided by top operatives of Obamas own successful White House runs as it pushes its replace the government mantra.

- Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.

Things came to a head, said Ayalon, when the White House said Obama would not meet with Netanyahu when the Israeli leader at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner came to Washington to address a joint session of Congress Tuesday on problems his government sees with administration-backed efforts to reach a nuclear weapons inspection deal with Iran.

If anyone thinks they can influence the Israeli electorate from overseas, they are sorely mistaken, Ayalon told FoxNews.com. Israelis, like any people, (will) be defiant and oppose any hint or visibility of foreign interference in their domestic affairs.

That is why this may actually produce a backlash.

A poll this week has already shown Netanyahus center-right Likud Party holding sway as its main rival a center-left alliance called Zionist Union faltered. This comes a little more than a week after a Jerusalem Post/Maariv Sof Hashavua poll showed that 62 percent of 589 Israeli respondents believed the Obama administration was interfering in the election.

View original post here:
OBAMA MEDDLING? Charges ex-campaign aides trying to oust Netanyahu