Words the Left Dare Not Say

Thought Crimes ^ | 7-25-16 | Chris Shugart

[The_Harlequin]

In President Obama’s recent speech in response to the Orlando shooting, he admitted that he’s chosen not to use the term “radical Islam” when discussing terrorist attacks. He said that the term would neither accomplish nor change anything. And then he asked us, “Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” To which I would reply a resounding YES.

Any able leader, whether in the military, government, or business, understands the fundamental concept of a “target.” It’s the thing that gets defined and identified so the organization knows what it is that they’re trying to do. So what is the Obama administration trying to do? It’s true that the president correctly stated that, “Our mission is to destroy ISIL.” But who and what is ISIL? Apparently Obama doesn’t want to say.

Rather than straight talk about who and what we’re fighting, the president prefers to give us weak and mushy PR spin. He told us that labels are nothing more than political rhetoric. Meanwhile, Democrats in his administration are blaming Christians, Republicans, and guns for the Orlando slaughter. How’s that for political rhetoric? By avoiding to specify who we’re fighting, the Obama administration has created an unacceptably vague picture of what we’re doing and why. And it demonstrates the weak leadership behind Obama’s unwillingness to confront terrorism in any meaningful and effective way.

Why do liberals feel compelled to dance around the religious ideology that underlies the atrocities behind all of this? Are they naïve, or are they ignorant? I think it’s neither. The Left has a fundamental problem confronting the radical component that’s integral to the terrorists’ belief system. Each time someone points out the fanaticism that drives terrorism, it’s an uncomfortable reminder of the Left’s own radical ideology. It’s the common ground that they share. Both groups are made up of ideological zealots. The only difference is one is religious and one is political. And like any true believers, no sacrifice is too great, no measure too severe.

“Know your enemy and know yourself” is a well-known concept of military strategy that’s been around for centuries. Even today, coaches of sports teams understand this strategy as “knowing your opponent’s tendencies as well as your own.” In either arena, if you’re going to prevail, you must know exactly who it is you seek to defeat, plus have an understanding of how your opponent plans to defeat you. When it comes to the War on Terror, I suspect that the Left finds this kind of thinking an uncomfortable exercise. The results would be too revealing of their own fanaticism.

To understand militant Islam is to understand the American radical. The terrorist disregards his crimes, certain that they are his guaranteed ticket to heaven. Radicals justify their crimes, confident they will achieve a greater good: Utopia—Heaven on Earth, if you will.

In any discussion of terrorism, the influence of Koran based ideology should be impossible to ignore. Yet, head-in-the-sand liberals still refuse to acknowledge this radical Islamic component. Granted, human atrocity can be difficult to confront. That is understandable. But when liberals obscure our war on terrorism with political word games—that is despicable.

[heterosupremacist]

good post!

[be-baw]

Outstanding article. Clear, concise and persuasive.

[mjp]

By avoiding to specify who we’re fighting, the Obama administration has created an unacceptably vague picture of what we’re doing and why.

because