EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 20, 2016 13:36:40 GMT -5
Good to know that Loretta Lynch is redacting the 911 calls and transcripts of same to scrub references to Islamic terror so as to avoid "re-victimizing" the victims and families. What continues to be victimized, unfettered, is the truth... The administration continues to misinform the American people about the threat and is now censoring the words of the Orlando killer. Why? For the life of me I can't see the real motive in this censorship.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 20, 2016 13:56:00 GMT -5
In a new low even for this crowd, the word Allah was replaced with the word "God" in the transcript.
There is no level beneath which this Administration will not sink.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 20, 2016 14:02:02 GMT -5
Why? It all began as a reaction to an abusive video. Losing to UMASS by 24 in 1996 was disappointing, but I'm not sure it was abusive. If only we were watching that on video, instead of seeing it unfold 10 feet in front of our eyes.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 20, 2016 14:11:31 GMT -5
The Orlando slaying would not have happened with normal gun control laws on several levels. But most importantly, this was a person on an FBI watch list that by law couldn't be linked to him buying guns which he bought after being on those lists. That's because the NRA thought to fight the fact that maybe someone could end up on a list inappropriately and not be able to buy a gun. That might violate that individuals rights more than working through that to figure out the right answer. I'm not a person against the right to bear arms within reason but need to crack down and figure out it's not our own government we should fear but the bad guys who will use our laws against us. Wow, if you were trying to set a record for most problems with one post, I think you set it. What are "normal gun control laws," and how do they exist on several levels? What law prevents people on the "FBI watch list" from being the denied the ability to purchase a firearm? You think it's the NRA that's complaining the most about due process surrounding the no-fly list? Guess you're not familiar with that other right-wing group, the ACLU.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,216
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 20, 2016 15:16:34 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 20, 2016 18:38:52 GMT -5
When you get caught red handed (or a stained dress), guess you have to confess.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,216
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 20, 2016 19:17:41 GMT -5
When you get caught red handed (or a stained dress), guess you have to confess. Ed, did you see my previous comment that addressed the reasoning behind the usage of words? Please offer a substantive rebuttal to the considered opinion of many intelligence analysts. The FBI did not "confess" anything. Not certain what a "stained dress" has to do with this particular subject. Regardless, this is why I rarely comment on matters such as these. It is not productive.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 20, 2016 19:40:46 GMT -5
The fact that this issue is being debated is disgraceful all by itself. The DOJ released a falsified transcript to the American people. I am not simply talking about the pieces whic were redacted. I am taking about the deliberate choice to replace the word "Allah" with the word "God".
This was deliberate attempt by this administration to again conceal the role of Radical ISLAM in this attack.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 20, 2016 22:09:56 GMT -5
The fact that this issue is being debated is disgraceful all by itself. The DOJ released a falsified transcript to the American people. I am not simply talking about the pieces whic were redacted. I am taking about the deliberate choice to replace the word "Allah" with the word "God". This was deliberate attempt by this administration to again conceal the role of Radical ISLAM in this attack. From altered videos of press conferences to edited transcripts of 911 calls, the "most transparent administration ever" is amazingly consistent. The "photoshopped legacy".
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Jun 20, 2016 23:04:14 GMT -5
The fact that this issue is being debated is disgraceful all by itself. The DOJ released a falsified transcript to the American people. I am not simply talking about the pieces whic were redacted. I am taking about the deliberate choice to replace the word "Allah" with the word "God". This was deliberate attempt by this administration to again conceal the role of Radical ISLAM in this attack. Snort. Are you serious? Do you really believe the nonsense you're spewing? The edited transcript is easier to fill in than Mad Libs, especially when you go off what Comey said a week ago : www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2016/06/fbi_director_omar_mateen_had_history_of_radicalThis is obviously trying to balance transparency vs. propaganda. I think they totally botched this and should have just released the unedited transcript in the first place but the idea they're doing this to conceal something is totally laughable.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 20, 2016 23:28:08 GMT -5
I'm conflicted. Islam is a religion of peace. As such, the label of Islamic Terrorist, to me, is an oxymoron. If one is killing in the name of religion, they aren't religious or devout. I suppose the language matters but I don't see how the language is a step in fixing the root of the problems. I don't consider priests that are also pedophiles Christian pedophiles. It's antithetical to their proposed beliefs to prey on children. I consider them straight up pedophiles. They are sick, twisted people devoid of faith regardless of what they profess to believe in.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 21, 2016 5:10:16 GMT -5
The fact that this issue is being debated is disgraceful all by itself. The DOJ released a falsified transcript to the American people. I am not simply talking about the pieces whic were redacted. I am taking about the deliberate choice to replace the word "Allah" with the word "God". This was deliberate attempt by this administration to again conceal the role of Radical ISLAM in this attack. Snort. Are you serious? Do you really believe the nonsense you're spewing? The edited transcript is easier to fill in than Mad Libs, especially when you go off what Comey said a week ago : www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/herald_bulldog/2016/06/fbi_director_omar_mateen_had_history_of_radicalThis is obviously trying to balance transparency vs. propaganda. I think they totally botched this and should have just released the unedited transcript in the first place but the idea they're doing this to conceal something is totally laughable. You are kidding right? If this clown had been pledging allegiance to the Tea Party or Trump do you think it would have been edited? For that matter, if he had pledged allegiance to Israel do you think this administration would have scrubbed the transcript? Please...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by TC on Jun 21, 2016 6:57:33 GMT -5
Are the Tea Party or Trump or Israel trying to recruit people to commit terrorism in their name and convincing people completely unaffiliated with them to do it off of social media? Pretty sure all three groups would condemn terrorism in their name.
Well, two of the three would at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 8:44:21 GMT -5
To paraphrase the presumptive Republican nominee: it seems like Elvado is angrier at Obama, the FBI, and Loretta Lynch than he is at the guy who murdered 49 people.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 21, 2016 9:01:35 GMT -5
To paraphrase the presumptive Republican nominee: it seems like Elvado is angrier at Obama, the FBI, and Loretta Lynch than he is at the guy who murdered 49 people. If so , it is only because that guy is now dead and is not in charge of protecting my family. I expect more from the President than from a terrorist sociopath...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 21, 2016 12:25:16 GMT -5
When you get caught red handed (or a stained dress), guess you have to confess. Ed, did you see my previous comment that addressed the reasoning behind the usage of words? Please offer a substantive rebuttal to the considered opinion of many intelligence analysts. The FBI did not "confess" anything. Not certain what a "stained dress" has to do with this particular subject. Regardless, this is why I rarely comment on matters such as these. It is not productive. SS, I have re-read your comments and I respect what you have to say even though I disagree with much of it. First, you say using the term radical Islam infers we are waging war on all of Islam. Wrong. Some of the rest of your post is worthy of consideration but all are minor when considering we are bombing ISIS, killing many of their members along with unknown numbers of civilians. We're killing them; but calling them names is worse?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,216
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 21, 2016 14:26:35 GMT -5
Ed, did you see my previous comment that addressed the reasoning behind the usage of words? Please offer a substantive rebuttal to the considered opinion of many intelligence analysts. The FBI did not "confess" anything. Not certain what a "stained dress" has to do with this particular subject. Regardless, this is why I rarely comment on matters such as these. It is not productive. SS, I have re-read your comments and I respect what you have to say even though I disagree with much of it. First, you say using the term radical Islam infers we are waging war on all of Islam. Wrong. Some of the rest of your post is worthy of consideration but all are minor when considering we are bombing ISIS, killing many of their members along with unknown numbers of civilians. We're killing them; but calling them names is worse? Ed, I had to re-read what I posted and nowhere do I see that I indicated that using the term radical Islam implies that we are waging war on all of Islam nor do I infer any such thing. None of the intelligence professionals I quoted said any such thing either. What you are missing is what the average man in the Arab street infers. Having spent two years living in a Muslim country, you cannot underestimate their lack of sophistication in their understanding of the US and its politics. They do not distinguish between statements made by members of Congress, the President, or former USG officials who are now pundits. It is THEY who may infer that the US is waging a war on all of Islam. That's the worry and why it may operate as a recruiting tool for the terrorists. Explain how using the term serves any operational purpose? It doesn't and may be counterproductive. George W. Bush avoided using the term "Radical Islam" as well. That's why he used the phrase "Global War On Terrorism" (GWOT). Obama changed that to "Countering Violent Extremism" (CVE). In the work I did at DOJ, National Security Division, did the lack of the term "Radical Islam" make a difference? Zero, none whatsoever. We did not refer to the "Radical Islamist Mohammed" but identified the suspected terrorist by name and affiliation with a designated FTO, if any. I worked for Director Comey when he was Deputy Attorney General and his now-General Counsel at FBI, Jim Baker, is the guy who actually hired me from another component at DOJ. Both are straight shooters and fundamentally career DOJ guys not swayed by politics. Not much different from Bush on Islam? Bloomberg notes that George W. Bush also avoided the term “Radical Islam,” saying it’s a “longstanding U.S. policy.” Why? As Elliot Abrams, who served as deputy National Security Adviser to George W. Bush told Eli Lake, “We were invading two Muslim countries, and we were being accused of being at war with Islam. So the administration wanted to make it very clear that we are not at war with Islam and every Muslim in the world.” www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/Remember Bush in the aftermath of 9/11? georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.htmlIf using the term makes anyone feel better, fine. I have nothing further to say on this. One final edit. For all you lawyers or wannbe lawyers here who wish to read up on Obama's CT policies, I recommend this book by Charlie Savage: www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/has-obama-upheld-the-law/"Gradually, other points of continuity between the national security policies of Bush’s second term and the Obama administration became evident. Obama revived the military commissions charged with conducting trials of detainees. He continued to classify the struggle against al-Qaeda as a war to be fought under military rules. He also increased drone strikes, maintained the NSA’s secret surveillance programs, and prosecuted whistleblowers with greater zeal than any administration in history. What happened?"
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,314
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 21, 2016 22:58:34 GMT -5
I've dipped my toe into waters that are, likely, far beyond my depth in this thread outside of my gut reactions and feelings about what it is we're facing but I like that this is a thread in which people are actually debating and offering information (for the most part) as opposed to just sniping at other posters. I'll probably add little to the discussion but I will continue to read the posts from posters with varied opinions and expertise in this area. Discussions like this are probably what I miss most about college or being around similarly interested people day to day. To SSHoya, thank you for the links. I'd likely not have found those on my own.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 22, 2016 13:15:20 GMT -5
I appreciate SS's post on the subject. It is a valid point of view. I do not accept it, however.
I do not have special expertise on the subject but, over the years, I believe I have developed a skill at getting to the heart of a matter (some may disagree with that) through whatever process I have been gifted with. I have been through World War II, participated in the Korean War, followed the Vietnam War, the Kuwait War, the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. In none of those did we worry about offending through words those we fought. It is beyond unbelievable to me that calling our enemy Radical Islam is of any significant consideration when compared to the fact that we are targeting Radical Islam leaders and fighters with our bombs. We are not targeting Islam, nor are we condemning Islam with our words. We are targeting and identifying Radical Islam with our bombs and words of which the latter is minor when compared to the former.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jun 22, 2016 17:49:26 GMT -5
I appreciate SS's post on the subject. It is a valid point of view. I do not accept it, however. I do not have special expertise on the subject but, over the years, I believe I have developed a skill at getting to the heart of a matter (some may disagree with that) through whatever process I have been gifted with. I have been through World War II, participated in the Korean War, followed the Vietnam War, the Kuwait War, the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. In none of those did we worry about offending through words those we fought. It is beyond unbelievable to me that calling our enemy Radical Islam is of any significant consideration when compared to the fact that we are targeting Radical Islam leaders and fighters with our bombs. We are not targeting Islam, nor are we condemning Islam with our words. We are targeting and identifying Radical Islam with our bombs and words of which the latter is minor when compared to the former. There, by and large, we were fighting against nation-states -- entities that were not relying on recruitment from abroad or co-opting from within in order to wage their war. The Nazis and Japanese were conscripting or not conscripting regardless of the language we used to describe them. It is beyond dispute that the present terrorist entities use the notion that the West is "waging war on Islam" as a tool to recruit people to their cause. Is that propaganda? Of course. Is it wrong? Obviously. But it is nonetheless a fact that they do it. Thus, from an operational perspective, it makes sense to do what we can to tamp down that propaganda's efficacy. Perhaps it is impossible to do so. But unless it is doing harm, then there is no reason not to try. And, thus, we choose our words carefully. I guess I'm not sure where the problem is with that.
|
|