Posted on 06/28/2016 1:32:58 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The recent verbal attacks by the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump and his supporters on President Barack Obama for avoiding the phrase "radical Islam" in his public pronouncements are simplistic, racially inflammatory and flatly misinformed.
Settling upon accurate and strategically nuanced terms to describe the post-9/11 enemy is not the product of "political correctness" (contra Trump) or a failure to understand the enemy (contra a much-discussed Atlantic cover story). Nor are objections to using overly broad terms like "Islamic radicalism" limited to Democrats. The Bush administration understood the power of words, too. It concluded that distinctions that may seem small to Christian-American ears make a big difference to the mainstream Muslims we need on our side.
When I directed the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the CIA in the early 2000s, I frequently interacted with senior Bush administration policymakers about how to engage Muslim communities and, when doing so, which words and phrases to use to best describe the radical ideology preached by al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Always, the aim was to distinguish between radicals and extremists and the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, and to make sure the latter understood that we were not lumping them in with the former.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Back in the day, I used to work at a restaurant. We had a waiter named Yousuf. A Paki. During the Iranian hostage crisis, he wore a sticker tag under his name tag that stated he was not Iranian.
He was here for school. Never spoke of religion. He was a pretty easy going guy. Don’t know if he stayed, went home or what became of him.
To clarify, Dr. Khalilzad was the highest ranking, openly acknowledging and openly practicing Muslim in the U.S. Government.
The Bushies were really bad for America. “Islam” is the problem, not “Radical Islam”. They would rather pay obeisance to Islam than acknowledge the truth (or the author of truth)
What’s his name?
5.56mm
“racially inflammatory...”
Quit reading right there. Everything after that is crap.
“Mohammadian” is considered far more insulting by them :-)
It’s just Islam. Blood thirsty savages.
“the mainstream Muslims we need on our side.”
NONSENSE! We don’t need ANY Muslims on our side! NONE of them are anyway.
Ann Barnhardt is correct. There weren’t good Nazis and bad Nazis. Anyone putting forth that idea would have been institutionalized.
The other thing to remember is that Muslims are taught to LIE! You can NEVER trust them.
Distrust and verify.
We are doomed if we won’t properly identify WHO the enemy is.
The enemy is ISLAM! ALL ISLAM.
WIPE IT OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
Recent opportunities to engage Muslims in the US have been mostly law enforcement returning fire...
Classic Romans 1:22.
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Islam is all that needs to be said
Scumbag.
from this article:
http://www.caribbean360.com/opinion/emile-nakhleh-how-to-end-the-gaza-war
it appears the author of this article hates the Jews. So no wonder he agrees with Obama.
"Emile Nakhleh, a retired senior intelligence service officer and former director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the CIA"
No greater enemy to that small part of the once Free Republic left.
Jihadists like this guy are the REASON ISLAM IS HERE AND DOMINATING. The CIA *AND* CFR!
There is only one Allah, there is only one Muhammad, there is only one Jihad.
Happy Ramadan everyone, enjoy your blood spattered airports like Attaturk, much more coming, your way, and soon, all courtesy of shtstains on humanity like the CIA and this guy.
It’s an editorial from “Vox” — meaning you can safely ignore it.
Correct and quite obvious (not a slam on you).
This highly learned senior analyst for the CIA and CFR member who presumes to tell us the difference betwenn Islam, political Islam, and radical Islam makes such an obvious and careless mistake that is guaranteed to inflame the mindless ones who viscerally react to everything “racist?”
No, his words were exactly chosen for effect.
Only a Muslim “president” ordering a Muslim CIA Director and an Agency so in bed with the Saudis they know every Ishmael-brown and Langely-red stain on the sheets could have a “former” CIA asset produce such low-end propaganda vomit at this.
Pure CIA propaganda, 100%
but if it’s okay to say radical tea party ???
15 years of this nuanced crap has gotten us where?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.