Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Obama Administration Censors French President Hollande's Reference to "Islamist Terrorism"

Recently, President Obama met with French President Fran├žois Hollande to discuss matters of international security. When footage posted on the White House website was discovered to be missing portions of Hollande's audio (specifically, Hollande's comment about "Islamist terrorism"), the White House replied that a technical problem had led to the gap in audio. However, a closer examination of the footage shows that the audio footage was not accidentally lost and then restored; instead, it was deliberately removed and then replaced when the censorship was exposed.


Unknown said...

@ David, we should not forget that President Obama’s parental families are Muslims. How could we expect someone to blame Islam for killing innocent people, inspired from Quran and by citing the name of “Allah-Hu-Agbar” (Allah is great)? It is insult to President Obama and his family. For greater interest it is politically correct to erase some objectionable word that squarely blame Muslims holy book Quran and their Allah, where billions of Muslims bestowed their faith. May God bless you to find the truth!

truthandlife said...

hello brother david and others ,i have a question that is bothering me for longtime may be it would not be in the same line with the subject of article/// so please tell me ,i'm a christian african and young writer specialized in apologetics topics ;i'm missionary among muslims people.i'm writing books about islam,jihad,qur'an... i don't know is it better to write it with an pseudo or write it write with my real name.because of muslims attacks here in central africa(cameroon,...) please waiting for your answers .thanks.

Zub said...

Nice bit of sleuthing David.

Unknown said...

David watched your last debate with John Loftus re Jesus resurrection im sorry you had to debate someone who is so skeptical that all of your points were booted out of hand and this is the guy who has been for years trying to debate William Lane Craig..he is im afraid a typical internet blogging atheist who would be made to look foolish as you made him if he ever faced the foremost Christian apologist on the planet.

Unknown said...

Regardless to Bush, Obama or whoever’s president’s agenda, I think the temptation to push secular leaders to enlisting the secular state into fighting an ideological war of religion against Islam is probably a mistake. I think that is what the Islamist want. We should think twice before pursuing such a course.

Since 9/11 we’ve only slowly come to understand Islam. I would say that progress here is just getting traction.

Here’s what I know. Islam as a religion has never been able to win on the merits. For the 1st 12 years in Mecca, Mohammed gained < 160 followers. Theologically he offered nothing new. He derived everything from existing religions except that he is God’s primary agent. Without politically based coercive force Islam would have died with Mohammed. With coercive force it has gained immense traction. It has a long tradition of using religion to advance itself politically & vice versa. But it can’t survive a war of ideas where ideas are the only agency of the conflict. Thus it fears modernism. Modernism delivered what Christ first commanded: separation of civics from religion. This is why modernism emerged in the west and Islamic terrorist are attempting to reverse.

Beyond Islam (& some in it) there is widespread recognition of the validity of the separation of civics & religion: perhaps 75% of the globe. If you tie this to freedom of conscience & expression (the 1st amendment) & can increasingly push & enforce this as an international norm everywhere then Islam is completely exposed. The sum of all Islamist’s fears.

This is an ideological war, similar to the cold war. We did not figure out how to deal with that until George Kennon drafted a strategy in 1947. By 1954 Eisenhower predicted in the ease of certainty that the Soviet Union would last only 4 or 5 more decades. Once the strategy was in place, the outcome was almost certain. Likewise once we have the right strategy, the outcome becomes certain.

Ideological wars are won & lost one brain at a time. We don't have to take the bait & turn this into a full-fledged war. We can simply insist on an international regime of secular governments & freedom of conscience & expression. Call it the 1st Amendment war. Then we win. The role of the governments then is to increasingly enforce that globally. This is reinforced over time because it’s intrinsically a universally fair concept.

Then I see an alliance between secular humanism AND Christianity pressing an argument on the merits against Islam. Secular humanist punches from the left and at the head while Christianity punches from the right at the heart. Islam will be overwhelmed defending against both simultaneously.

Secular humanism is needed to reinforce the concept of freedom not just of religion but from religion that freedom of conscience implies. It also gives Muslims the options of choosing to simply just let go of Islam if they want.

We are still in a formulating stage. Christians are only just coming around and organizing through apologetics. A like Secular Humanist movement needs to be formulated too. Also “orders” of independent groups of intellectual & missionary “knights” should be created, each with different roles/specialties/approaches.

Christians can start arguing now: "Islam won’t last 5 decades if all Muslims have full freedom of conscience & expression. This is why they don't tolerate criticism of their religion or its founder. Islam cannot win an argument on the merits w/out recourse to coercive force. This is why the death penalty for apostasy." Challenge Muslim countries to allow freedom conscience & expression. When they do, send in the order of missionaries. Muslims will begin to go secular or Christian. Islam won’t last 5 decades. A doctrine of love beats a doctrine of violence once violence is denied to the latter. Perhaps this is why the Arab Spring failed. They didn’t yet have the requisite freedom of conscience and expression needed.

Baron Eddie said...

that was an act of a thimy


Baron Eddie said...


Quanuck said...

Do the French have a full version of the video?