No, President Donald Trump did not resort to petty name calling of the terrorists in the Manchester bombing. To the untrained ear, it might seem that way. The President is very good at parsing words, apparently. By using the term Islamic instead of Islamist he did a couple of things. One thing he did not do was piss off some critical Middle East nations. You can read about the subtlety here.
As Written By David Harsanyi for the New York Post:
Following the terrorist attack in Manchester, England, that left at least 22 people dead and dozens injured, President Trump referred to terrorists as “evil losers in life.” As expected, a number of liberal pundits mocked the president’s unrefined language. So jejune, you know?
Inadvertently or not, Trump landed on a plain-spoken stinging moniker that happens to be true. No matter how many people the next Salman Abedi ends up killing, theocratic dead-enders are losers in every societal, ideological and historical sense.
Now, it’s debatable whether it matters very much to would-be terrorists what unpleasant names Trump has in store for them. How we talk about terrorism, on the other hand, is important. Over the past eight years (at least), the topic has been obscured by clinical euphemisms and feel-good platitudes for the sake of winning hearts and minds. How’s that going?
Leaders in Western nations have gone out of their way to craft rhetoric that circumvents Islam completely when speaking about terrorism. We’re hooked on platitudes, such as “man-caused disaster,” treating terrorism as some kind of spontaneous criminal event, rather than a tactic used predominately by one ideology.
At the same time, the left has been transforming tolerance into a creed that means accepting illiberalism. Their overcompensation to imagined backlashes has given real-life excuses to ignore the pervasive violence, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse, tyranny, anti-Semitism, bigotry against Christians, etc., that exists in large parts of Islamic ……
KEEP READING HERE: