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 ...
May a Pox come upon Vox!!
“Remove kebab”
sure, but’s okay to call out right side conservatives who cling to their guns and bibles, got it...moron.
Correct. And all who submit are, to borrow a term from Malachi Martin, the "perfectly possessed."
I read that.
I can’t post anymore for awhile.
And people don’t see what’s right in front of them: a nation essentially controlled by jihadis and their sympathizers.
Dhimmi
Bush was bad on this subject also. Obama is worse but Bush had his lips locked to Saudi buttocks.
As soon as I read “Bush Administration” I knew this would be a bunch of garbage.
Better to just call it “Devout” or “Adherent/Observant” rather than the overused “Radical” or “Militant”.
Will I guess he is right. By not saying “Radical Islam the problem has gone away!
No wonder they are such complete F***ups for the last several decades.
You and me both, brother.
“But to Muslims, or for anyone familiar with the many strands of Islam, the phrase connotes a direct link between the mainstream of the Muslim faith and the violent acts of a few.”
We knuckle-draggers need a PhD in Nuance to understand these Elites.
The entire premise of the article is that there are Muslims who are violent and extremist!
The real question is: WHY do Obama and Hillary care about making this tortuous nuance? Why does it matter if any Muslim is offended by words that should describe someone else?
The viable answers are clear to anyone, and they’re all frightening.
“I prefer to call it “Medina Islam” and then challenge all the “moderate Muslims” to only adopt the “Mecca Parts of the Quran” and to discard the rest... to become “Mecca Muslims”
No takers yet...”
Right there with ya! Will they risk the hudud judgement though?
KYPD
Sorry, you're out. I will read no more.
The author erred. Islam, radical or otherwise, is not a race; it is a religion.
Nakhleh, who was born in Palestine and served in the CIA for 16 years before retiring in 2006, is a Muslim.
George W. Bush nominated a Muslim, Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations after the Democrats refused to confirm John Bolton.
UN Ambassador is the highest post attained by a Muslim in the United States government.
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.