Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 12, 2016 12:58:08 GMT -5
Utter the word Islamic terrorism? The world awaits.
Or will he again demonize guns rather than the psychotics who use them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2016 13:04:42 GMT -5
I highly doubt it.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 12, 2016 13:09:29 GMT -5
Like so much of his Presidency, he got half the job done. Said terror (would not mention radical Islam) but was clear about the gun laws being to blame.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 12, 2016 15:19:31 GMT -5
Utter the word Islamic terrorism? The world awaits. Or will he again demonize guns rather than the psychotics who use them? Yeah, that's far more effective than actually stopping radical extremists from buying weapons, something most Congressional Republicans oppose.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 12, 2016 15:41:48 GMT -5
It really is not that hard to acknowledge that there are radical Islamists devoted to killing Americans is it? Why can't our President recognize this enemy? You have all told us for years how brilliant he is. Yet he can't add two and two to make four?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2016 17:42:34 GMT -5
Why did President Obama state "we have no definitive assessment of the motivation of Omar Mateen......." I am confused. Didn't he call the cops to inform them that he was pledging his fealty to ISIS?? Maybe Mateen lied.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 12, 2016 18:10:48 GMT -5
It really is not that hard to acknowledge that there are radical Islamists devoted to killing Americans is it? Why can't our President recognize this enemy? You have all told us for years how brilliant he is. Yet he can't add two and two to make four? It's an issue to make when you have no other issues to make... In other words, in the real world, a non issue.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 12, 2016 18:43:48 GMT -5
It really is not that hard to acknowledge that there are radical Islamists devoted to killing Americans is it? Why can't our President recognize this enemy? You have all told us for years how brilliant he is. Yet he can't add two and two to make four? It's an issue to make when you have no other issues to make... In other words, in the real world, a non issue. No sir. With all due respect for your opinion, it is a real problem when your leader refuses to identify an enemy that is killing your fellow citizens. Is he afraid of offending ISIS? That boat, sadly, has sailed. They hate us and want to kill us.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 12, 2016 19:00:27 GMT -5
Actually, E, if he called them out, it really would not bother me. Should he also call out all the radical "Christian" terrorists who have perpetrated acts of terror against the citizens of our country?
|
|
SirSaxa
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 12, 2016 19:53:34 GMT -5
Utter the word Islamic terrorism? The world awaits. Or will he again demonize guns rather than the psychotics who use them? Your anger is understandable Elvado. All of us as Americans are angry about the horrific events that took place in Orlando overnight. However, I don't understand what you think would be gained by calling this guy - and his ilk - Islamic Terrorists. If you would do me the courtesy of withholding your response long enough to take in and consider what I have written below, I would appreciate it. What is going on in the Middle East? Al Qaeda, ISIS and others are fringe groups of extreme fundamentalists who are representing an obscene misinterpretation of Islam as the one true way, and further that they are the leaders who will bring Islam back to its rightful place as a dominant global power. They oppose all of the legitimate governments in the region as well as claiming the West hates Islam and is at war with Islam - especially the USA. They also claim they are the only ones who can defend Islam against this awful onslaught from the Great Satan. The more we play into their hands, the worse the situation becomes. So when we say we are going to war with Islam, that we are going to "Carpet bomb" ISIS, that we refuse entry to all Muslims, that we are going to single Muslims out because of their religion and treat them differently we are playing into their hands. And IF we were refer to this FRINGE group of extremists as "Islamic Terrorists", we would be giving them legitimacy that they do not deserve. How many Islamic extremists do you suppose there are? 100K? 200K? 1 million? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. However many extremists there are in Al Qaeda and ISIL, it is a tiny, miniscule percentage of the total population of Muslims globally. What gives these few the right to claim they represent Islam? And why should the US state that we are opposed to "Islamic Terrorists" rather that extremists? Labeling them "Islamic" will be interpreted as reinforcing their claims that they are the legitimate standard bearers, that the US hates Islam, and that we are at war with Islam. On the other hand, what do you think we would gain by labeling them "Islamic Terrorists"? Would that give us some kind of advantage that we don't presently have? Remember, there are a great many Muslims in the USA right now. Are we at war with them? Were we at war with Muhammad Ali? Kareem Abdul Jabbar? Are we at war with all of the Islamic nations of the world? It is somewhat similar to recognizing a new government of a nation. The US refused to recognize Mao's government as the legitimate leaders of China. Instead we recognized Taiwan, which controlled only an island and a small percentage of the population. That went on for decades, across multiple administrations from both parties because we did not want to grant any legitimacy to Mao - though he was in a far more deserving position to claim it than these extremists. We do not believe that Al Qaeda and ISIS represent any portion of Islam. They are simply using their grossly distorted interpretation to claim that Allah is behind them - when they attack us in France, Belgium, the UK, and here in the USA - and when they murder and maim other Muslims, claiming sharia law requires it. It is not wise to play into their hands by giving them the recognition and legitimacy of being "Islamic Terrorists". Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these points.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 12, 2016 19:57:53 GMT -5
Actually, E, if he called them out, it really would not bother me. Should he also call out all the radical "Christian" terrorists who have perpetrated acts of terror against the citizens of our country? The reason why President Obama (and President Bush before him) does not use that broad brush is that it is likely to be exploited by enemies that would promote that the US is at war with 1+ billion Muslims and not specific individuals. The fragile support the US in many countries is predicated on the faint hope that the average Egyptian or Turk or Nigerian or any number of other important countries does not lose all hope in the West and thus avoid turning a third of the world's population against the US and Western Europe. There are plenty of mistakes the Administration has made in foreign policy but this is generally not one of them.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 12, 2016 20:56:54 GMT -5
Utter the word Islamic terrorism? The world awaits. Or will he again demonize guns rather than the psychotics who use them? Your anger is understandable Elvado. All of us as Americans are angry about the horrific events that took place in Orlando overnight. However, I don't understand what you think would be gained by calling this guy - and his ilk - Islamic Terrorists. If you would do me the courtesy of withholding your response long enough to take in and consider what I have written below, I would appreciate it. What is going on in the Middle East? Al Qaeda, ISIS and others are fringe groups of extreme fundamentalists who are representing an obscene misinterpretation of Islam as the one true way, and further that they are the leaders who will bring Islam back to its rightful place as a dominant global power. They oppose all of the legitimate governments in the region as well as claiming the West hates Islam and is at war with Islam - especially the USA. They also claim they are the only ones who can defend Islam against this awful onslaught from the Great Satan. The more we play into their hands, the worse the situation becomes. So when we say we are going to war with Islam, that we are going to "Carpet bomb" ISIS, that we refuse entry to all Muslims, that we are going to single Muslims out because of their religion and treat them differently we are playing into their hands. And IF we were refer to this FRINGE group of extremists as "Islamic Terrorists", we would be giving them legitimacy that they do not deserve. How many Islamic extremists do you suppose there are? 100K? 200K? 1 million? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. However many extremists there are in Al Qaeda and ISIL, it is a tiny, miniscule percentage of the total population of Muslims globally. What gives these few the right to claim they represent Islam? And why should the US state that we are opposed to "Islamic Terrorists" rather that extremists? Labeling them "Islamic" will be interpreted as reinforcing their claims that they are the legitimate standard bearers, that the US hates Islam, and that we are at war with Islam. On the other hand, what do you think we would gain by labeling them "Islamic Terrorists"? Would that give us some kind of advantage that we don't presently have? Remember, there are a great many Muslims in the USA right now. Are we at war with them? Were we at war with Muhammad Ali? Kareem Abdul Jabbar? Are we at war with all of the Islamic nations of the world? It is somewhat similar to recognizing a new government of a nation. The US refused to recognize Mao's government as the legitimate leaders of China. Instead we recognized Taiwan, which controlled only an island and a small percentage of the population. That went on for decades, across multiple administrations from both parties because we did not want to grant any legitimacy to Mao - though he was in a far more deserving position to claim it than these extremists. We do not believe that Al Qaeda and ISIS represent any portion of Islam. They are simply using their grossly distorted interpretation to claim that Allah is behind them - when they attack us in France, Belgium, the UK, and here in the USA - and when they murder and maim other Muslims, claiming sharia law requires it. It is not wise to play into their hands by giving them the recognition and legitimacy of being "Islamic Terrorists". Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these points. I read and respect your very cogent arguments. Now think on this one for a moment. This President, having declared ISIS a JV entity and continuously spinning happy tales about ISIS being on the run, can not and will not admit that most of his pronouncements on this issue have been empty and not based in reality. Yesterday's reality (like San Bernardino before it) does not fit his fanciful narrative and thus we can not admit it.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,595
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 12, 2016 23:54:08 GMT -5
This seems like a good place to interject the analysis of Professor Dan Byman, my old boss and one of the planet's foremost experts on terrorism: www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2016/06/lone_wolf_terrorists_like_omar_mateen_present_a_different_kind_of_threat.htmlTo further establish Dan's bona fides, I will note that, in addition to being a Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service with a concurrent appointment with the Georgetown Department of Government; the Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs of the School of Foreign Service; and the Research Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, Dan is also a devoted Hoyas fan with many seasons holding halfcourt seats. Dan is surely correct that some subset of degenerates will try to use the more toxic interpretations of Islam to justify their brutality, much as scoundrels throughout the ages have sought to justify their wanton acts of destruction through recourse to revered texts and philosophies both sacred and secular. Denying them the satisfaction - even posthumously - of successful appropriation has both strategic and ethical benefits. With the former, we accomplish what DFW laid out: a clear distinction between a vast, billion-plus community of believers and cultural identifiers versus a dangerous but small cadre of homicidal extremists. On the latter, we reiterate the principle that people are to be judged by their own actions, not those who merely share the same label, and freedom of religion requires us to distinguish between those peacefully adhere to a religion and those who actively conspire to commit violence in its name.
|
|
|
Post by NY Hoya on Jun 13, 2016 0:26:31 GMT -5
perhaps it's our permissive religious restrictions?
let's not immediately rush to restricting guaranteed liberties, eh, prof Byman?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,205
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 13, 2016 5:56:15 GMT -5
Your anger is understandable Elvado. All of us as Americans are angry about the horrific events that took place in Orlando overnight. However, I don't understand what you think would be gained by calling this guy - and his ilk - Islamic Terrorists. If you would do me the courtesy of withholding your response long enough to take in and consider what I have written below, I would appreciate it. What is going on in the Middle East? Al Qaeda, ISIS and others are fringe groups of extreme fundamentalists who are representing an obscene misinterpretation of Islam as the one true way, and further that they are the leaders who will bring Islam back to its rightful place as a dominant global power. They oppose all of the legitimate governments in the region as well as claiming the West hates Islam and is at war with Islam - especially the USA. They also claim they are the only ones who can defend Islam against this awful onslaught from the Great Satan. The more we play into their hands, the worse the situation becomes. So when we say we are going to war with Islam, that we are going to "Carpet bomb" ISIS, that we refuse entry to all Muslims, that we are going to single Muslims out because of their religion and treat them differently we are playing into their hands. And IF we were refer to this FRINGE group of extremists as "Islamic Terrorists", we would be giving them legitimacy that they do not deserve. How many Islamic extremists do you suppose there are? 100K? 200K? 1 million? There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. However many extremists there are in Al Qaeda and ISIL, it is a tiny, miniscule percentage of the total population of Muslims globally. What gives these few the right to claim they represent Islam? And why should the US state that we are opposed to "Islamic Terrorists" rather that extremists? Labeling them "Islamic" will be interpreted as reinforcing their claims that they are the legitimate standard bearers, that the US hates Islam, and that we are at war with Islam. On the other hand, what do you think we would gain by labeling them "Islamic Terrorists"? Would that give us some kind of advantage that we don't presently have? Remember, there are a great many Muslims in the USA right now. Are we at war with them? Were we at war with Muhammad Ali? Kareem Abdul Jabbar? Are we at war with all of the Islamic nations of the world? It is somewhat similar to recognizing a new government of a nation. The US refused to recognize Mao's government as the legitimate leaders of China. Instead we recognized Taiwan, which controlled only an island and a small percentage of the population. That went on for decades, across multiple administrations from both parties because we did not want to grant any legitimacy to Mao - though he was in a far more deserving position to claim it than these extremists. We do not believe that Al Qaeda and ISIS represent any portion of Islam. They are simply using their grossly distorted interpretation to claim that Allah is behind them - when they attack us in France, Belgium, the UK, and here in the USA - and when they murder and maim other Muslims, claiming sharia law requires it. It is not wise to play into their hands by giving them the recognition and legitimacy of being "Islamic Terrorists". Thank you for taking the time to read and consider these points. I read and respect your very cogent arguments. Now think on this one for a moment. This President, having declared ISIS a JV entity and continuously spinning happy tales about ISIS being on the run, can not and will not admit that most of his pronouncements on this issue have been empty and not based in reality. Yesterday's reality (like San Bernardino before it) does not fit his fanciful narrative and thus we can not admit it. Most terrorism experts believe that labeling terror attacks as radical Islamic terrorism is either detrimental to efforts to combat them or simply not strategically important to defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and their ideology. The rhetorical battle has little to do with the nuts-and-bolts fight against these groups, said Daniel Serwer, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and director of the Conflict Management Program at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "ISIS claims a connection to Islam, but are we better off accepting the ISIS claim rather than believing the many Muslims who say terrorism has no legitimate connection to their religion?" Serwer asked. "I personally have no problem talking about Islamic extremism, but would it make the fight against it more successful if our officials were willing to call it that? I doubt it." Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who now directs the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, said the debate is just semantics. "Whether or not we call it Islamic terrorism is not the issue," Riedel said in an interview Sunday, pointing to actions the administration takes rather than rhetoric. www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/islamic-terrorism-trump-obama-clinton/Spent the last 8 years of my federal career in the National Security Division at DOJ working on counterterrorism and counterespionage cases with the FBI, including 2 years in the Middle East. I'll go with Serwer and Riedel. It makes no operational difference and may be counterprodutive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 7:16:32 GMT -5
Very interesting posts. My belief is that refusing to call this Islamic terrorism is, in isolation, not particularly important. However, it reflects a continuing pattern of PC and other similar statements. It reflects a "perception" of weakness on our part. It is just a continuation of the policy when Obama set a red line and did nothing about it when Assad crossed it (even if he fired a few cruise missiles, that would have given him some credibility). It reflects a foreign policy pattern that I disagree with. My belief is that even if he had used the term radical Islamic terrorism, it would not have changed the feelings about this country anywhere in the world. And if it did, So What??
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,205
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 13, 2016 9:14:01 GMT -5
Is ISIS in fact losing? From Paul Pillar: "Those issues are going to have to be confronted soon. ISIS is on the run. In Iraq it has lost nearly half of the territory it had gained in its offensive in 2014, and government forces are in the early stage of a campaign to retake Iraq's second city, Mosul. In Syria the group recently suffered a major defeat in losing Palmyra to government forces, and it has lost additional ground to other opposition militias in the northwest. Meanwhile reports accumulate of the group's mounting financial difficulties and problems in trying to administer its mini-state." nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/isis-losing-now-comes-the-hard-part-15686And Daniel Pipes (no great friend of Obama): "I predict that the ISIS state in Syria and Iraq will collapse as fast as it arose. Indeed, I will go out on a limb and say I expect it to be gone by the end of 2016." www.danielpipes.org/16626/isis-is-collapsing
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Jun 13, 2016 10:05:40 GMT -5
Is Trump pulling out the "Obama is a secret Muslim" card again?
"[Obama] doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands,” Trump said of the president’s response to the nightclub shooting. “It’s one or the other. And either one is unacceptable.”
I just don't know any other way to interpret that part...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 13, 2016 14:06:50 GMT -5
Utter the word Islamic terrorism? The world awaits. Or will he again demonize guns rather than the psychotics who use them? Yeah, that's far more effective than actually stopping radical extremists from buying weapons, something most Congressional Republicans oppose. Oh, you mean the no-fly list? The list for which the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association (so sayeth that conservative watchdog known as the ACLU)? The list that once you're on it (if you ever know you're on it), is nearly impossible to get off? The list that is actually a subset of an even larger watch list (the Terrorist Screening Database)? That list?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 13, 2016 14:12:15 GMT -5
I read and respect your very cogent arguments. Now think on this one for a moment. This President, having declared ISIS a JV entity and continuously spinning happy tales about ISIS being on the run, can not and will not admit that most of his pronouncements on this issue have been empty and not based in reality. Yesterday's reality (like San Bernardino before it) does not fit his fanciful narrative and thus we can not admit it. Most terrorism experts believe that labeling terror attacks as radical Islamic terrorism is either detrimental to efforts to combat them or simply not strategically important to defeating terrorist groups like ISIS and their ideology. The rhetorical battle has little to do with the nuts-and-bolts fight against these groups, said Daniel Serwer, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and director of the Conflict Management Program at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "ISIS claims a connection to Islam, but are we better off accepting the ISIS claim rather than believing the many Muslims who say terrorism has no legitimate connection to their religion?" Serwer asked. "I personally have no problem talking about Islamic extremism, but would it make the fight against it more successful if our officials were willing to call it that? I doubt it." Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who now directs the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, said the debate is just semantics. "Whether or not we call it Islamic terrorism is not the issue," Riedel said in an interview Sunday, pointing to actions the administration takes rather than rhetoric. www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/islamic-terrorism-trump-obama-clinton/Spent the last 8 years of my federal career in the National Security Division at DOJ working on counterterrorism and counterespionage cases with the FBI, including 2 years in the Middle East. I'll go with Serwer and Riedel. It makes no operational difference and may be counterprodutive. I would contend that if POTUS is unable to admit that we're dealing with Islamic extremism/terrorism, then he is self-limiting the approach that he going to take in dealing with ISIS. Put another way, Obama's rhetorical issues do effect how his administration carries out the nuts-and-bolts fight (to use Serwer's language). If he can't admit to himself what we're facing, then why would he take a stronger approach? Instead, we get a focus like this: "I don't know the particulars of what happened, but I'm certain more gun control laws would've made a difference."
|
|