The big political news from last week was the Republican nominating convention and, if you judge the importance of stories based on time spent spinning in the news cycle, it seems as though the Yugist Event was Trump's spouse allegedly lifting words from Obama's during her brief speech at the start of the event.
I'm not sure what it means for our republic that a fallacy such as Argumentation from Outrage is on the verge of supplanting the whole package of logical and rhetorical techniques designed to construct a sound argument and then present it in a compelling manner. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean nothing.
The dirty war in Algeria, which pitted Islamists against the army, haunts many people who fled to France to escape the terror and murder meted out by the FIS (Islamist front). Others who fled Iran may be equally vehement. French people who should remember the murderous consequences of such rhetoric during the Algerian war of independence still favor it today.
This is not to deny that President Obama has other reasons, as well, for how he chooses to describe terrorists. He is reluctant to call Islamic those who, he strongly believes, are in clear violation of the tenets of "true Islam." Yet is it not true that a bad Muslim is still a Muslim, just as a bad Christian is still a Christian, and a bad Jew, a Jew?