"I owe the MRC an apology for doubting them. I read this piece assuming all the way through that they had misconstrued what must be a perfectly innocent glitch by the White House in translating Hollande. Nope. Watch the official WH video below (starting at 3:20) and follow along with the official WH translation and you’ll see how hard it is to come up with an explanation different from theirs. The audio on the clip perfectly tracks the transcript — except when it cuts out for exactly two sentences and then resumes:
"But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition."
...You know what the worst part is?
Hollande didn’t say “Islamic terrorism,” which is the supposedly objectionable term.
He said “Islamist terrorism.”
“Islamist” was, I thought, a term that came into use precisely because it gave the speaker an efficient way to distinguish between “moderate Muslims” and the more jihad-minded.
“Islamic” describes all things Muslim;
“Islamist” describes a supremacist view in which Islam is the highest authority of the state.
Many critics of Islam would dispute that there’s a meaningful distinction between those two, but Obama and Hollande certainly wouldn’t.
ISIS may not be Islamic to Obama but it’s certainly Islamist. Point being, Hollande chose his words carefully here according to the White House transcript so as not to conflate the average Muslim with the jihadis he’s discussing — and the White House still censored him.
That’s the point we’re at.
Update: Needless to say: “If a Republican president was silencing translations because of politics, it’d be a front-page story.”
No comments:
Post a Comment