Jun. 21, 2016
Is it possible that the current language debate over the use of “radical Islam” is an instance of the noisy conflict of half-truths?
- Regarding your editorial “ Obama and ‘Radical Islam’” (June 15): French President François Hollande’s approach to terrorism contrasts with President Obama’s.
Following the mass shootings in Paris, where there are extremely strict gun laws, Mr. Hollande was very angry and urged his country to combat “radical Islamists” and used his authority to seek them out. President Obama was equally angry after the mass shootings in San Bernardino and Orlando but not at the radical Islamic terrorists. Instead, he was angry at his political opponents, the Republicans, for not enacting stricter gun laws. He was also angry that they called radical Islamic terrorists “radical Islamic terrorists.” When another shooting, one that killed 130 people, took place in Paris, Mr. Hollande redoubled his efforts against radical Islamists. After Orlando, President Obama and his successor-candidate, Hillary Clinton,redoubled their efforts against their political opponents.
Mr. Obama charged his opponents with being at war with “an entire religion.” Mr. Hollande acknowledged a war against radical Islamist terrorism, while proclaiming that all faiths could live peacefully in secular France. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton attacked Donald Trump. Mr. Obama complained that Mr. Trump and his followers were trying to prevent his officials from “doing their job,” while FBI Director James Comey acknowledged, in effect, that his people had failed to do their job in San Bernardino and Orlando.
Wouldn’t we rather have a President Hollande?
Gerald R. Kleinfeld
- During World War II the U.S. didn’t admit immigrants from Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or Imperial Japan.
Michael K. Paul