Is President Obama wise to refuse to refer to Islamic Terrorists as "Islamic?"

The President has been criticized for only praising Islam and never referring to terrorists as Islamic Terrorists. The President has the responsibility of protecting all Americans, and he is obviously concerned that Non-Muslim Americans do not start perpetrating acts of violence on Muslim Americans in retaliation for what is happening elsewhere. George W. Bush had similar concerns.

But has Obama gone too far — referring to events a thousand years ago (the Crusades) in his attempt to equate Christianity as culpable as Islam? To many, this seems a bit extreme and more emotional/manipulative than logical.

So what are your views on this matter?

You might also comment on the anti-Islamic rallies in Germany. Is this good or bad?

My opinion is that Bush handled things the right way by being honest: the terrorists are, in fact, religiously motivated, and their motivation is their understanding of Islam. The world lumps Mormons, Catholics, orthodox, liberal protestants, and evangelicals in the same category as “Christian.” As a matter of fact, when it comes to the Crusades or Inquisition, we are held accountable, even though we are not Roman Catholic. The same logic of lumping together, however, leads us to rightly label these terrorists as Islamic terrorists. They are not Marxist terrorists or Arab terrorists.

Poll Results

Is President Obama wise to refuse to refer to Islamic Terrorists as “Islamic?”

The president is handling matters pretty well. Votes: 0
The president should acknowledge Islamic sects as part of Islam, but make a clear distinction, as Bush did Votes: 5
Obama has more sympathy toward Islam than he does for Christians who are suffering at the hands of radical Islam Votes: 5
It is easy to have easy answers for hard questions, I am unsure Votes: 0
No, the president needs to speak out against Islam as always having a terrorist potential because of history and Koran Votes: 1
Other Votes: 1