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?
Yes, the world doesn't need to tell India what to do because of our unique cultural value to the environment and our minimal contribution to historic carbon emissions, but neither can India's Prime minister continue to dwell in rhetoric and falsely lead the public into thinking he is doing enough to protect them.
Rhetoric is magic. But just like magic, it has its dark side. Just as J. K. Rowling gave her magical world the three 'Unforgivable Curses' -- Imperio, and Crucio, and Avada Kedavra, so rhetoric has it's own. It has Skotison, and Pysma, and Procatalepsis -- word structures designed to befuddle or destroy.