During the RNC a lot of the speakers have said that they want a president who will say radical islamic terrorism and they are bashing Clinton and Obama for not saying that. I would like to know why the Republicans thinks that saying radical islamic terrorism will make any difference? Obama and Clinton have called it something similar, but it's not like if they say radical islamic terrorism we will instantly win this war on terror.

It seems to me that Republicans are just angry, period.

I've rarely seen so much impotent rage in one room before. When Hillary hands Trump his ass on a plate in the election, some of them may actually explode!

dragon-wings wrote:

During the RNC a lot of the speakers have said that they want a president who will say radical islamic terrorism and they are bashing Clinton and Obama for not saying that. I would like to know why the Republicans thinks that saying radical islamic terrorism will make any difference? Obama and Clinton have called it something similar, but it's not like if they say radical islamic terrorism we will instantly win this war on terror.

Certainly not instantly. It's a matter of defining who the enemy is. Obama calls it "Violent Extremism" or something like that. It says nothing about who they are and what they want. Terrorism is a strategy, not a cause.

It's like going to a doctor, but he will only tell you that you are sick. He does not tell you that you have diabetes. Knowing what ails you is the first step in doing what is necessary to combat it.

Then instead on focusing on that they should provide actionable propositions on what to do to fight these barbarians.

Dreadnought wrote:

dragon-wings wrote:

During the RNC a lot of the speakers have said that they want a president who will say radical islamic terrorism and they are bashing Clinton and Obama for not saying that. I would like to know why the Republicans thinks that saying radical islamic terrorism will make any difference? Obama and Clinton have called it something similar, but it's not like if they say radical islamic terrorism we will instantly win this war on terror.

Certainly not instantly. It's a matter of defining who the enemy is. Obama calls it "Violent Extremism" or something like that. It says nothing about who they are and what they want. Terrorism is a strategy, not a cause.

It's like going to a doctor, but he will only tell you that you are sick. He does not tell you that you have diabetes. Knowing what ails you is the first step in doing what is necessary to combat it.

He is correct. Islamic terrorism is a type of radical extremism, and plenty of violence is done in the name of Islam. It is a problem. But so is vigilante black men taking shots at cops in Dallas and Baton Rogue--which is not Islamic. So is a wannabe terrorist with a severe reaction formation gunning down 50 people in a gay bar--which is not isolated to Islam, it's religious, and a lone wolf but not organized terror. So is Timothy McVeigh blowing up a building (using what has become Tea Party rhetoric, frighteningly enough)--it is not Islamic. So is a loony toon gunning down people in a black church--it is not Islamic. So is Eric Rudolph setting off bombs in my hometown at abortion clinics and the Olympic Games--it's religious terror, but it's not Islamic. So is some zealot shoot people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado--it's violent, it's religious, but it's not Islamic. Banging on about only Islamic Terrorism doesn't do much.

Don't these terrorists want religious legitimacy? To me calling them Radical Islam is exactly what they want. While I think the number of Muslims that approve of violence is alarming, the vast majority feels random violence is not justified in their religion.

Calling terrorists Radical Islam lumps peaceful Muslims with them. That is exactly what some Conservative Christians want too - to place all Muslims in an enemy list. So, no, influential politicians going out there and saying Radical Islam is the wrong way to talk.

incitatus wrote:

Don't these terrorists want religious legitimacy? To me calling them Radical Islam is exactly what they want. While I think the number of Muslims that approve of violence is alarming, the vast majority feels random violence is not justified in their religion.

Calling terrorists Radical Islam lumps peaceful Muslims with them. That is exactly what some Conservative Christians want too - to place all Muslims in an enemy list. So, no, influential politicians going out there and saying Radical Islam is the wrong way to talk.

This is spot on. Global affairs are an extremely nuanced thing and it takes an incredible amount of patience and judicious thought to manage them successfully. Blowing shit up without having the cleaning crew ready to come in and reconstruct is an example of exactly what not to do. We fail at this over and over and over again and our recent string of major military actions is evidence of this. We have had a direct hand in the creation of the very terrorist groups that Republicans want to fight with words, at least when they're not busy demanding that Obama blow up Syria. Think about John McCain, easily the Republican Senator that should know more than anyone in this forum about waging war without a plan. Until quite recently he was demanding that Obama blow up Assad's Syria. He actually advocated for doing the very thing that would've handed ISIS virtual control of a complete country.

I hope for our sake and the world's sake that the GOP will find a useful platform somewhere between meaningless words and terrorist-multiplying carpet bombing so that we can start building a real strategy to tamp down religious extremism. To me, personally, it is Radical Islam and Moderate Islam better get its shit together real fast because they're the only thing that can stop this madness. We need a strategy around that and Donald Trump ain't it. Between him and HRC it's no contest, she's the one that can guide us through the next 4-8 years, she has the experience, the thickness of skin, and the intellectual requirements for what will be the number one priority of the next administration. Trump is more like Bush Jr. overdosing on tainted steroids, or a drunk Dick Cheney waving a loaded Mossberg. Not fit for office in the least.

wingman wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Don't these terrorists want religious legitimacy? To me calling them Radical Islam is exactly what they want. While I think the number of Muslims that approve of violence is alarming, the vast majority feels random violence is not justified in their religion.

Calling terrorists Radical Islam lumps peaceful Muslims with them. That is exactly what some Conservative Christians want too - to place all Muslims in an enemy list. So, no, influential politicians going out there and saying Radical Islam is the wrong way to talk.

This is spot on. Global affairs are an extremely nuanced thing and it takes an incredible amount of patience and judicious thought to manage them successfully.

Precisely. Aaron747 has noted several times that's precisely why the President doesn't use the term radical Islam. Those at the highest levels of our security services have cautioned against using that term for this exact reason. Those at the GOP convention blathering on about Obama and Hillary not using the term conveniently forget that GWB didn't use it either. Then again, given some of the BS spouted at that convention, I'm pretty plenty in attendance at the convention consider Bush 43 a pinko liberal.

incitatus wrote:

Don't these terrorists want religious legitimacy? To me calling them Radical Islam is exactly what they want. While I think the number of Muslims that approve of violence is alarming, the vast majority feels random violence is not justified in their religion.

Calling terrorists Radical Islam lumps peaceful Muslims with them. That is exactly what some Conservative Christians want too - to place all Muslims in an enemy list. So, no, influential politicians going out there and saying Radical Islam is the wrong way to talk.

Blame the ignorants who keep thinking of Islam as just another religion, and who broadcast everywhere that it should be treated no different than Buddhism or any other religion. A normal religion gives rules and philosophy around your relationship with God, Gods, Nature, whatever. It is generally pretty personal. Islam in its radical form is the only "religion" that puts pretends to offer a holistic way of life for the whole world, including laws on politics, military, civil rights, civil law - everything - along with instructions to spread this across the world peacefully if possible, by deception if needed, and violently if anyone objects.

It is the only religion that instructs its followers to actually act in place of God, in that if you see someone who is, according to your belief, doing something sinful, gives you personally the right to be judge, jury and executioner. In all other religions that I know of, you can have an opinion about someone's behavior, you can tell them you think they are doing something wrong, but you are not allowed to actually punish the moral infraction yourself (He who casts the first stone...). That's generally a right reserved to God/Gods whatever. In radical islam, this difference is why you have honor killings, throwing gays off buildings, execution of apostates etc.

So, if you are Muslim in that you pray to Allah 5 times a day and live your own life according to Islamic tenets without the violent externalities, that is fine - we can coexist anywhere without a problem. That is Islam as a simple religion. But if you think that gays should be killed, or that apostates deserve death, or that Sharia law should dominate over civil law in any way, that is a violent ideology and your presence is incompatible with an open tolerant society - because your intention is to overthrow that open tolerant society.

Of course the scary thing is that this violent ideology is pretty widespread.



These are pretty radical views, and I think through a careful interview process, we should screen out those with such beliefs before we allow them to immigrate and mix with our societies.

Unfortunately, idealist leftists have this naive idea that we should be tolerant of everyone. They don't understand that if you tolerate intolerance, you are going to have a big problem, like they are starting to have in Europe right now (I think it will get much worse). Tolerance must be mutual.

wingman wrote:

To me, personally, it is Radical Islam and Moderate Islam better get its shit together real fast because they're the only thing that can stop this madness. We need a strategy around that and Donald Trump ain't it. Between him and HRC it's no contest, she's the one that can guide us through the next 4-8 years, she has the experience, the thickness of skin, and the intellectual requirements for what will be the number one priority of the next administration.

Trump is the only one who recognizes the difference between Islam as a religion (aka moderate islam) and the ideology (radical islam) and wants to treat them differently. HRC is one of the main architects of the disaster we have in the middle east right now. Can you name one major policy direction of hers during her tenure as SecState where she actually did anything right? Egypt - disaster. Libya - disaster, Syria - disaster, Iraq drawdown - disaster, Afghanistan - disaster, Russian "reset" - disaster. What has she gotten right?

Dreadnought - I found what you wrote acceptable up to the point you mentioned Trump. Trump does not understand Religion of any kind and that has never been a priority in his life. Trump understands how to be aggressive in business. But that is it. He opens his mouth and its blunder after blunder. He understands how to play on people's fears and prejudices. The level of support Trump enjoys in the US is as scary as the chart you posted. Very well said by you that tolerance must be mutual.

On your perception of Islam, Religion is subject to interpretation and religious people are very selective about it. Most religions can be twisted to advocate violence. If people do as you do and call a very twisted interpretation of Islam Radical Islam, then you are giving that interpretation religious legitimacy. As a society, we should not accept that as religious interpretation. Don't do it.

I think Dreadknot's slogan at the bottom of his posts speaks volumes about his maturity and ability to engage in intelligent debate.

2 days after 9/11 Trump did an interview where he seems more focused on rebuilding ground zero rather than helping the victims/families.

UNDECIDED voters need to see this!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoYXihwcp8c

Dreadnought wrote:

It is the only religion that instructs its followers to actually act in place of God, in that if you see someone who is, according to your belief, doing something sinful, gives you personally the right to be judge, jury and executioner. In all other religions that I know of, you can have an opinion about someone's behavior, you can tell them you think they are doing something wrong, but you are not allowed to actually punish the moral infraction yourself (He who casts the first stone...). That's generally a right reserved to God/Gods whatever. In radical islam, this difference is why you have honor killings, throwing gays off buildings, execution of apostates etc.

Sharia law is simply the Islamic version of civil law. So I don't see why it's wrong for a Muslim to have someone judged in a court of Islamic based-law when Westerners do the same all the time. As a matter of fact, Sharia law only covers robbery, theft, adultery & pre-marital sex (as well as false accusation of adultery/pre-marital sex but NOT rape, which is missed by those who apply Sharia law in full today), consuming liquor & apostasy (although there are arguments that apostasy is not covered under Sharia law). The burden of proof in this case is much higher - for example, a person who accuses someone of committing pre-marital sex must produce four witnesses of impeccable reputation who actually witnessed the fornication process. Failure to do so would mean that the accuser will be punished for impugning the reputation of the accused. And there is no directive for a Muslim to demand Sharia law when he or she is in the minority, so any Muslims demanding such in the Western world is wrong.

So, honor killings is not really an aspect of Islamic law (it is as a matter of fact a cultural thing), nor is the mistreatment of gays (even though homosexuality is a sin, I can find no proof that it is part of Sharia law). As for killing apostates, as stated there are arguments that it is not part of Sharia law so the question of execution of apostates is moot in this case.

Condemning Islam without thorough understanding isn't going to solve radicalism among the misguided in the Middle East - in fact quite the opposite, it will fuel the fire of radicalism even more!

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

It is the only religion that instructs its followers to actually act in place of God, in that if you see someone who is, according to your belief, doing something sinful, gives you personally the right to be judge, jury and executioner. In all other religions that I know of, you can have an opinion about someone's behavior, you can tell them you think they are doing something wrong, but you are not allowed to actually punish the moral infraction yourself (He who casts the first stone...). That's generally a right reserved to God/Gods whatever. In radical islam, this difference is why you have honor killings, throwing gays off buildings, execution of apostates etc.

Sharia law is simply the Islamic version of civil law. So I don't see why it's wrong for a Muslim to have someone judged in a court of Islamic based-law when Westerners do the same all the time. As a matter of fact, Sharia law only covers robbery, theft, adultery & pre-marital sex (as well as false accusation of adultery/pre-marital sex but NOT rape, which is missed by those who apply Sharia law in full today), consuming liquor & apostasy (although there are arguments that apostasy is not covered under Sharia law). The burden of proof in this case is much higher - for example, a person who accuses someone of committing pre-marital sex must produce four witnesses of impeccable reputation who actually witnessed the fornication process. Failure to do so would mean that the accuser will be punished for impugning the reputation of the accused. And there is no directive for a Muslim to demand Sharia law when he or she is in the minority, so any Muslims demanding such in the Western world is wrong.

So, honor killings is not really an aspect of Islamic law (it is as a matter of fact a cultural thing), nor is the mistreatment of gays (even though homosexuality is a sin, I can find no proof that it is part of Sharia law). As for killing apostates, as stated there are arguments that it is not part of Sharia law so the question of execution of apostates is moot in this case.

Condemning Islam without thorough understanding isn't going to solve radicalism among the misguided in the Middle East - in fact quite the opposite, it will fuel the fire of radicalism even more!

Any particular reason why pre-marital sex is considered a crime?

TheF15Ace wrote:

Any particular reason why pre-marital sex is considered a crime?

Avoiding pre-marital sex trains oneself to avoid temptations & protect the sanctity of marriage - you can't marry just to have sex & divorce without consequences (although I believe the Shiites in Iran do have this sort of practice).

Technically, by avoiding temptations you train yourself not to view women as merely sex objects but as human beings to be respected & revered. But of course, this doesn't usually happen.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

Any particular reason why pre-marital sex is considered a crime?

Avoiding pre-marital sex trains oneself to avoid temptations & protect the sanctity of marriage - you can't marry just to have sex & divorce without consequences (although I believe the Shiites in Iran do have this sort of practice).

And the punishment if proven that two consenting adults had pre-marital sex?

TheF15Ace wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

Any particular reason why pre-marital sex is considered a crime?

Avoiding pre-marital sex trains oneself to avoid temptations & protect the sanctity of marriage - you can't marry just to have sex & divorce without consequences (although I believe the Shiites in Iran do have this sort of practice).

And the punishment if proven that two consenting adults had pre-marital sex?

100 lashes of a cane - not in one go, mind you.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Avoiding pre-marital sex trains oneself to avoid temptations & protect the sanctity of marriage - you can't marry just to have sex & divorce without consequences (although I believe the Shiites in Iran do have this sort of practice).

And the punishment if proven that two consenting adults had pre-marital sex?

100 lashes of a cane - not in one go, mind you.

Firstly I'm not sure if you're joking.

If you are being serious, well this can be used as an example of why Sharia has no place in civilized society.

TheF15Ace wrote:

Firstly I'm not sure if you're joking.

If you are being serious, well this can be used as an example of why Sharia has no place in civilized society.

And jailing someone in a cramped cell for life & having to face the threat of being roughed up or even murdered by a fellow inmate is civilized enough?

Not to mention allowing a person to be wrongly imprisoned. That's civilized enough.

I think Gandhi said it best about Western civilization - "I think it would be a very good idea"

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

Firstly I'm not sure if you're joking.

If you are being serious, well this can be used as an example of why Sharia has no place in civilized society.

And jailing someone in a cramped cell for life & having to face the threat of being roughed up or even murdered by a fellow inmate is civilized enough?

Not to mention allowing a person to be wrongly imprisoned. That's civilized enough.

I think Gandhi said it best about Western civilization - "I think it would be a very good idea"

Please show me an example of a person being jailed for life for pre-marital sex.

Dreadnought wrote:

Trump is the only one who recognizes the difference between Islam as a religion (aka moderate islam) and the ideology (radical islam) and wants to treat them differently. HRC is one of the main architects of the disaster we have in the middle east right now. Can you name one major policy direction of hers during her tenure as SecState where she actually did anything right? Egypt - disaster. Libya - disaster, Syria - disaster, Iraq drawdown - disaster, Afghanistan - disaster, Russian "reset" - disaster. What has she gotten right?

Any time you want to tally up dead Americans, and might as well add dollars spent, in these countries under her and Obama's watch vs. Bush Jr. I'm happy to play that game. I think you and I would agree on one thing, the ME is a shit show, but it's how you deal with it where we differ. You guys just want to blow shit up and then pray that once the dust settles that hearts and minds will have been won over. Iraq- you created that mess, Afghanistan- you created that mess..Egypt, Syria and Libya are connected directly to the two messes you created. Finally Russia, you really want to try the blow up method with those guys? They actually do have nukular weapons so yet another extraordinarily bad idea from the extreme Right. Or are you supporting Trump's suggested strategy of appeasing Putin by blowing up NATO will do the trick?

Here's a laundry list of Republicans explaining what they think of Trump's latest foreign policy blunder in a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch..makes it tough to question the source. There's your candidate for you Dreads, nice work.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires- ... 1469120175

An extremist is the one executing a homosexual/woman who had extramarital relationship. A radical Muslim is the one watching it happening and clapping his hands. A moderate Muslim argues that the person should be put into a jail rather than killed. It takes a liberal Muslim to actually say that people shouldn't be punished for homosexuality / extramarital relationships.

Unfortunately these liberal Muslims are a minority in most Muslim countries, and thus there's a clear conflict of values between most Muslims arriving to our countries and us.

victrola wrote:

I think Dreadknot's slogan at the bottom of his posts speaks volumes about his maturity and ability to engage in intelligent debate.

He gets exactly zero respect until that goes. Until then he's just another dipshit who already has one idea. With the requisteam braincells to match.

This is par for the course for the republicans. They don't have a solution; they have a cliche. Call it "islamic terrorism"...call it "purple potato shooter"...call it whatever you want: once the yelling stops the GOP will just be standing around without a clue of what to do, no matter what you call it.

pvjin wrote:

An extremist is the one executing a homosexual/woman who had extramarital relationship. A radical Muslim is the one watching it happening and clapping his hands. A moderate Muslim argues that the person should be put into a jail rather than killed. It takes a liberal Muslim to actually say that people shouldn't be punished for homosexuality / extramarital relationships.

Until the last sentence I thought you were talking about the GOP platform.

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is par for the course for the republicans. They don't have a solution; they have a cliche. Call it "islamic terrorism"...call it "purple potato shooter"...call it whatever you want: once the yelling stops the GOP will just be standing around without a clue of what to do, no matter what you call it.

pvjin wrote:

An extremist is the one executing a homosexual/woman who had extramarital relationship. A radical Muslim is the one watching it happening and clapping his hands. A moderate Muslim argues that the person should be put into a jail rather than killed. It takes a liberal Muslim to actually say that people shouldn't be punished for homosexuality / extramarital relationships.

Until the last sentence I thought you were talking about the GOP platform.

Unless I'm totally mistaken an average GOP supporter would find the best match in terms of values from a liberal Muslim.

pvjin wrote:

Unless I'm totally mistaken an average GOP supporter would find the best match in terms of values from a liberal Muslim.

Its shocking for me to realize how correct that statement is.

salttee wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Unless I'm totally mistaken an average GOP supporter would find the best match in terms of values from a liberal Muslim.

Its shocking for me to realize how correct that statement is.

I'm sure he didn't mean to make such a brilliantly correct point.

coolian2 wrote:

salttee wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Unless I'm totally mistaken an average GOP supporter would find the best match in terms of values from a liberal Muslim.

Its shocking for me to realize how correct that statement is.

I'm sure he didn't mean to make such a brilliantly correct point.

But I did, I'm very good at making brilliantly correct points that anger people who would rather close their eyes from uncomfortable truths.

Do what I did, open your eyes and realize that humankind sucks and there's no hope.

pvjin wrote:

Do what I did, open your eyes and realize that humankind sucks and there's no hope.

OFFS, get off the cross, someone needs the wood. If you're so hopeless go take a warm bath.

pvjin wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

This is par for the course for the republicans. They don't have a solution; they have a cliche. Call it "islamic terrorism"...call it "purple potato shooter"...call it whatever you want: once the yelling stops the GOP will just be standing around without a clue of what to do, no matter what you call it.

pvjin wrote:

An extremist is the one executing a homosexual/woman who had extramarital relationship. A radical Muslim is the one watching it happening and clapping his hands. A moderate Muslim argues that the person should be put into a jail rather than killed. It takes a liberal Muslim to actually say that people shouldn't be punished for homosexuality / extramarital relationships.

Until the last sentence I thought you were talking about the GOP platform.

Unless I'm totally mistaken an average GOP supporter would find the best match in terms of values from a liberal Muslim.

Maybe they should clue in their party? Because they're on a different page--make that different book in a different library on a different planet, entirely.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Do what I did, open your eyes and realize that humankind sucks and there's no hope.

OFFS, get off the cross, someone needs the wood. If you're so hopeless go take a warm bath.

I don't own a bathtub, and unfortunately swimming pools aren't open 24/7 here either.

pvjin wrote:

Do what I did, open your eyes and realize that humankind sucks and there's no hope.

Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with the history of humankind over the last two thousand (or twelve thousand) years would see that your "no hope" premise is false. It seems that the hopeless problem you are troubled with is a local one, not one of humankind itself, but your own personal issue.

There are always little nuggets of brightness in the human experience. For example, its reassuring to me that a guy like you spends your time studying political/military matters and posting on the internet; it would be a tragedy if you spent a lot of your time guiding children through their formative years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 47311.html

This is why we should NOT call it "Islamic." The article also lists two other incidents involving Muslims on airplanes who were doing nothing other than sitting. And, let's not forget the Sikh temples that have been vandalized and burned and Sikh men who have been beaten and mosques that have been vandalized. All because people equate Islam with violence.

For people to assume that all Muslims are terrorists because some use religion as to kill is like saying all heterosexuals are child molesters because there are heterosexual child molesters.

salttee wrote:

pvjin wrote:

Do what I did, open your eyes and realize that humankind sucks and there's no hope.

Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with the history of humankind over the last two thousand (or twelve thousand) years would see that your "no hope" premise is false. It seems that the hopeless problem you are troubled with is a local one, not one of humankind itself, but your own personal issue.

There are always little nuggets of brightness in the human experience. For example, its reassuring to me that a guy like you spends your time studying political/military matters and posting on the internet; it would be a tragedy if you spent a lot of your time guiding children through their formative years.

Don't worry, in my future employment I get to share my knowledge of the world with Finnish youth, so that they have the best chances of growing up well informed independent citizen.

I see lots of hope in my personal life, but long term survival chances of our specie seem very bad.

Going back to the original topic, the US needs a president who will actually acknowledge the Islam problem in the world.

Obama's failure to say "Islamic Terrorism" just shows that he is not acknowledging the violence that some followers of Islam are causing and illustrates his failure to take care of the problem.

He owns the ISIS problem and the current lone wolf terrorist issues.

L-188 wrote:

Going back to the original topic, the US needs a president who will actually acknowledge the Islam problem in the world.

Obama's failure to say "Islamic Terrorism" just shows that he is not acknowledging the violence that some followers of Islam are causing and illustrates his failure to take care of the problem.

He owns the ISIS problem and the current lone wolf terrorist issues.

By Bush invading Iraq and declaring "Mission Accomplished" is the one who founded ISIS. And, to say that Islam is the problem is crazy. Christianity is a problem. We need a leader who is not afraid to acknowledge that Christianity is the problem. Look at all the hatred in the United States associated with Christianity. Some couples are not allowed to openly express their caring for each other nor live in the same home together because of Christianity. Some people are still being murdered because of Christianity in this country. Christianity is a problem and we need a bold leader to tell the world to stop Christianity.

See how stupid that sounds? It is not the concept of religion but how weak minded people use the concept of religion.

L-188 wrote:

Obama's failure to say "Islamic Terrorism" just shows that he is not acknowledging the violence that some followers of Islam are causing and illustrates his failure to take care of the problem.

Why can't you understand that uttering those words are meaningless in the west to anyone except for Fox news / Donald Trump zealots, yet they carry a potential insult to Islam for 2.4 billion Muslims worldwide? Obama is not only acknowledging the violence wrought by militant Islamists he is conducting war against them in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and various other locations around the globe some of which get no press. Remember OBL was taken down on Obama's watch? (You might want to read: http://www.google.com/search?q=the+way+ ... 8&oe=utf-8)

L-188 wrote:

He owns the ISIS problem and the current lone wolf terrorist issues.

Assuming that you are old enough, it is you who actually owns the ISIS problem. Right wing yokels such as yourself were screaming so loudly for war back in 2003 that anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq was in real danger of being labelled a traitor.

And if you don't know it, the Iraq war was the birth of ISIS.

L-188 knows destabilization of Iraq inflamed the situation, he just doesn't have the integrity to walk back any erroneous statement since, oh, 9/11/2001

L-188 wrote:

Obama's failure to say "Islamic Terrorism" just shows that he is not acknowledging the violence that some followers of Islam are causing and illustrates his failure to take care of the problem.

OK it's islamic terrorism. Then what? What's the next step? I'm guessing dumbfounded silence...

L-188 wrote:

He owns the ISIS problem and the current lone wolf terrorist issues.

Your GOP created ISIS. They smacked the wasps' nest like a pinata and then ran away. Oh and then when it was so disastrous they sent a surge. And here we are. Thanks L-188!

1. Republicans are always angry at Obama, so that can be dismissed out of hand.

2. The best terrorism experts say not to give them legitimacy by using the words "Islamic Terrorism". I'll go with the recommendation of the experts.

3.Terrorism by those perverting Islam is not the sole source of terrorism in the world.

4. Getting angry over semantics on this is like getting angry over being told you are dying of lung cancer from smoking, but yelling at the doctor for not telling you which brand of cigarette is the culprit. It's pointless.

Hillis wrote:

2. The best terrorism experts say not to give them legitimacy by using the words "Islamic Terrorism". I'll go with the recommendation of the experts.

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

Let's see how the "experts" acted in regards to the Orlando shooter. One of his colleagues reported him to the FBI, but the FBI (the experts) determined that Mateen was a victim of Islamophobia and is not a terrorist risk. Oops.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-documents-revealing-fbi-declared-mateen-not-terrorist/

When the "experts" conflict with common sense, it's time to doubt them.

Dreadnought wrote:

Hillis wrote:

2. The best terrorism experts say not to give them legitimacy by using the words "Islamic Terrorism". I'll go with the recommendation of the experts.

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

Let's see how the "experts" acted in regards to the Orlando shooter. One of his colleagues reported him to the FBI, but the FBI (the experts) determined that Mateen was a victim of Islamophobia and is not a terrorist risk. Oops.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-documents-revealing-fbi-declared-mateen-not-terrorist/

When the "experts" conflict with common sense, it's time to doubt them.

Terrorism. Ta-da.

Maybe if I explain it this way:

Because an overwhelming majority of rape is heterosexual, it is a heterosexual problem and we need to always say heterosexual rape every time it happens.

What is the right's obsession with putting one religion above another? As I recall, Islam lists Jesus as a prophet. And don't come at me with "but they kill" or whatever BS reason for breaking holy laws. What about all of the starving in Christian nations? What about the prostitution and gambling? What about the Crusades and the Inquisition? Don't tell me Christians are above Muslims.

Dreadnought wrote:

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

Because unlike the GOP they're not goddam morons? And they know squawking about what it's called surprisingly has zero effect on the outcome? Just a thought. What is the GOP's solution once they name it? Same as their solution to Obamacare once they repeal it? IE bupkiss? More prayer? Have any of you gotten past naming it while the experts have moved on to, you know, trying to solve the problem?

Dreadnought wrote:

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

Dread, this is a very serious question because it goes to the heart of the GOP strategy to fight terrorism and you are clearly a proponent of it. How would you describe the 24/7 military action, intelligence operations, drone flights, combat aircraft flights, special ops troops presence, expert advisor presence, and the resulting evidence we see and read daily of operations against jihadists that have taken place without interruption during the past 8 years and continue as I write this in some 10-20 separate Arab or Muslim-predominant countries? Are you seriously suggesting that Obama and the US government are not combating the problem, and that they are unaware of the problem?

I am asking you, kindly and respectfully, to explain in detail how you would fix this. Are you saying that we should continue to do what we're doing but make just blurt out daily "Islamic Terrorism..Islamic Terrorism..Islamic Terrorism"? Please explain how that will improve the results. You might also suggest that we invade and occupy some of these countries. If so, please explain how the outcome will be different from what we see today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. How will you pay for this, always a good question that Republican presidents fail to grasp or answer? Maybe you're a different kind of Republican and will be amongst the first of your kind to explain how you will solve the problem. If you truly believe that a phrase will eliminate terrorism then I can't help but feel sorry you. I mean, if Trump won't defend Eastern European NATO allies from Russia, how can we possibly count on him to effectively fight terrorism?

And I want to add to what Seb said below about 'Christianity"..over the past 30 years tally up the total number of dead, combatants and civilians, amongst people from "Christian" countries and those from Muslim countries. We all know that tally is probably close to 20-1 in the combatant count and maybe the same or more for the civilian count. Let's set the combatant count aside and focus on the civilian one. On our end we are terrorized by jihadist terrorism and believe that these perpetrators are evil and need to be eliminated. What do you think is the view of the civilian victims of our invasions and bombings in Muslim countries? Do you think they look at the bits of their blown up children and say "oh, this is legal warfare, sniff sniff". No, they look at the United States as the ultimate terrorist. This is what we're trying to fix and that your last two GOP heroes created, a pure hatred so intense that it fuels otherwise normal people to create and join organizations like al-Qeada and ISIS. So I agree with Seb's and Mav's point that hurling words that would offend even the most moderate non-practicing Muslims doesn't do anything to advance our goals, it only makes things worse. I just can't understand how anyone would fail to grasp that.

Much of the 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' isn't about Islam, but has roots in economic, religious and ethnic discrimination, harassment and differences, made worse by the USA, Europe and Israel's economic and political colonialism, support of bad secular leaders or ones part of one rival 'tribe' or family line. Many in American and increasing in Europe, want simple labels, to target certain persons where a common religious identifier.

Yes, President Obama and Democrats in general are reluctant to use the term. Unlike any other current or past Western leader, President Obama had Muslim father and experience living in a dominate Islamic country. He recognized the complex and not purely religious factors for terrorism and hate toward the 'West'. He knows such labels will bring out bad decision as to foreign and military policy as well as lead people in the USA to discriminate, have hateful behaviors that for sure will bring out even more terrorism in the USA and on USA interests outside the borders.

seb146 wrote:

Terrorism. Ta-da.

Terrorism is a strategy, not a cause. That's like if we said in WWII that the enemy was Blitzkrieg. It's just stupid.

wingman wrote:

Dread, this is a very serious question because it goes to the heart of the GOP strategy to fight terrorism and you are clearly a proponent of it. How would you describe the 24/7 military action, intelligence operations, drone flights, combat aircraft flights, special ops troops presence, expert advisor presence, and the resulting evidence we see and read daily of operations against jihadists that have taken place without interruption during the past 8 years and continue as I write this in some 10-20 separate Arab or Muslim-predominant countries? Are you seriously suggesting that Obama and the US government are not combating the problem, and that they are unaware of the problem?

A friend of mine just came back from deployment in Afghanistan. The rules of engagement are so tight now that our troops aren't allowed to fire until they are in imminent danger of death. I commend Obama for the drone strikes, but generally speaking we have fought that war with one hand tied behind our back for the past 6-7 years. Iraq was basically won when Obama took over, and he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by eliminating our intelligence assets in Iraq - one of the first things he did, as well as advertising our drawdown dates. Afghanistan, he committed to a surge but immediately told the enemy that it would only be for 18 months - so they simply waited. You win wars only by slamming the enemy constantly and without hope of reprieve unless they surrender.

wingman wrote:

I am asking you, kindly and respectfully, to explain in detail how you would fix this. Are you saying that we should continue to do what we're doing but make just blurt out daily "Islamic Terrorism..Islamic Terrorism..Islamic Terrorism"? Please explain how that will improve the results.

I won't pretend to be an expert. But I do know that you can't begin to fix a problem unless you can define it.

wingman wrote:

So I agree with Seb's and Mav's point that hurling words that would offend even the most moderate non-practicing Muslims doesn't do anything to advance our goals

Why would calling out "Radical Islam" offend moderates? The term "Radical" should define exactly who we are talking about.

PS, I appreciate the respectful tone.

ltbewr wrote:

Much of the 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' isn't about Islam, but has roots in economic, religious and ethnic discrimination, harassment and differences, made worse by the USA, Europe and Israel's economic and political colonialism, support of bad secular leaders or ones part of one rival 'tribe' or family line.

wingman wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

I'm sorry but that is the sort of leftist claptrap that helps people deny to root of the problem and simply blame white people. The roots are in a culture that every couple of hundred years goes on a rampage every since the 7th century, inspired by a truly despicable religious leader who makes Jim Jones look positively delightful in comparison. If the west had nothing to do with the middle east over the past 100 years, they would still be causing us big problems. Read what Churchill wrote about the subject over 100 years ago - this is nothing new.

Dreadnought wrote:

we have fought that war with one hand tied behind our back for the past 6-7 years

That war was all but lost at Tora Bora when Cheney ordered the US Tenth Mountain Division to Iraq in preparation for the invasion there. At that time the Taliban had been almost completely driven out of Afghanistan. Had OBL and company been rounded up and security in country been provided long enough for Afghanistan to rebuild its military and police functions things would have turned out much different there. As it is now, the Taliban are embedded among the local population and it is considered counterproductive to declare the whole country a free fire zone. Like it or not this looks like the only course of action that will allow the US to withdraw completely from Afghanistan anytime in our lifetimes.

Dreadnought wrote:

Iraq was basically won when Obama took over, and he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory........................

Which war was almost won? The first "war" was against Saddam's army. The second war was against the Sunnis who were represented mostly (but not exclusively) by members of Iraq's defeated military. The third war fortunately was only a cold war (but it came very close to a shooting war) this war was against the Shiias: both the Shia government led by Malaki and the militias who were variously religiously or Iranian inspired and were only loosely allied with the government.

The surge was actually in response to this threat of a two front war, (at the time of the "surge", the US military reached agreement with the Sunnis that the real enemy for both was the Malaki government aligning itself with Iran) because the US found it's rear areas in serious danger from the Shiites while fighting the Sunnis. It was at about the time of the Surge that the British who were occupying Shiite territory decided that things were getting a bit too hot for them and announced their imminent pullout.

When Malaki saw that the US was aligning itself with the Sunnis, he began to get bitchy. The straw that broke the camel's back came when Malaki refused to renew the agreement that gave US soldiers protection from Iraqi law, and this was at a time when the gang-rape and killing of 14-year-old Iraqi girl Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her family by United States Army soldiers was still fresh in the minds of many people east and west. George Bush did the only thing he could do at that point and called Malaki's bluff by announcing US troop withdrawals from Iraq. But Malaki wasn't bluffing and he wanted no part of having US forces doing any "nation building" on Sunni turf. He accepted the US pullout with no qualms.

This was the state of affairs when Barack Obama became president.

I won't pretend to be an expert. But I do know that you can't begin to fix a problem unless you can define it.

I nominate for one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.

I'm sorry but that is the sort of leftist claptrap that helps people deny to root of the problem and simply blame white people

Huh?? Is this about white people vs the rest?

ltbewr wrote:

Much of the 'Radical Islamic Terrorism' isn't about Islam, but has roots in economic, religious and ethnic discrimination, harassment and differences, made worse by the USA, Europe and Israel's economic and political colonialism, support of bad secular leaders or ones part of one rival 'tribe' or family line.

While I do not disagree with your statement that US and Europe bear some responsibility, it is not fair to leave it at that. The Middle East is a violent place, irrespective of Western interference. Muslims killing non-Muslims gets a lot of press, but Muslims killing Muslims probably has a much greater body count. Often, the choice the West has had to make is between two very bad options. Meddling or not, the outcome would be bloody.

Then there is the positive side of Western influence, especially US military presence and trade. What would be of Dubai/UAE and Qatar without US military presence in the Gulf? They would be just sand dunes along pirate infested waters. The countries in the region with leaders that have understood the world around them have done pretty well.

Dreadnought wrote:

Hillis wrote:

2. The best terrorism experts say not to give them legitimacy by using the words "Islamic Terrorism". I'll go with the recommendation of the experts.

OK, genius, how do the "experts" recommend that we combat the problem if you are not allowed to even describe it?

The tobacco company analogy works well here, too. It doesn't matter if it's Camel, Marlboro, Lucky Strikes, or even Skoal. What matters is it's killing you. Same with terrorism. Who cares what you call it, be it from terrorists who pervert Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion or any other cause. What matters that it is killing people.

I'll guess that you and others want to name it so it gives you some political cover to continue justifying your own deep-seeded prejudices against Muslims. We've seen Donald Trump do that to score points. Newt Gingrich came out last week and suggested we deport any Muslims, even American-born ones, if they say they like Sharia. That solves nothing. All it does is fuel hatred. I'm surmising that's why it's so important to you.

Dreadnought wrote:

but generally speaking we have fought that war with one hand tied behind our back for the past 6-7 years. Iraq was basically won when Obama took over, and he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by eliminating our intelligence assets in Iraq

Chuck, where are you getting this stuff from? It really makes one wonder which war you were watching between 2003 and 2009, bet it Afghanistan or Iraq. We were nowhere near victory in either when Bush left office. He took his eye off the legit war in Afghanistan, because Cheney and a group called Project For A New American Century, a neocon think-tank, had convinced him that Iraq was the real danger. That group even tried to convince Bill Clinton back in the mid-90's of the same hairbrained scheme. He took intel and resouces away from Afghanistan and moved them to Iraq; we "won" the ground war, but we had no plan to win the peace that followed, as we got rid of anyone who had any professional military experience and let the inmates run the asylum. And, despite your cliams, and the claims of others that Obama caused ISIS, it was Bush's lack of post-invasion strategy, and his agreement with Iraq to pull troops in 2011 that led to the vacuum filled by ISIS.

The knee-jerk reaction that everything is Obama's fault, and that his tenure as president has existed in some sort of chronological vacuum of time and history has always been one that makes me shake my head. It's simply a false narrative.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Terrorism. Ta-da.

Terrorism is a strategy, not a cause. That's like if we said in WWII that the enemy was Blitzkrieg. It's just stupid.

Right. It has very little to do with religion. The only part that religion pays is that people twist the words of Mohammed from life into death. Using sacred texts to convince people to do just the opposite of what their religion says. We need to stop saying we are at war with religion and say that we are at war with extremists and terrorists. <i>That</i> is what the right is crying about. They want a religious war. They need a tangible enemy.