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 ...
Sure they do. The problem is that such supremely self-congratulatory "experts" always seem to avoid responsibility for the disastrous outcomes of policies with which they were intimately involved. Somehow, with their credentials, such as they are, intact. Academics are not, unfortunately, an outcome-based field.
This stuff is familiar to anyone studying the nature of the enemy in, for example, World War II, wherein looked at closely enough, no one was responsible for the atrocities. Certainly not the German people as a whole, not the Wehrmacht, most of whom knew little of what was going on, not the Waffen SS, many of whom were only soldiers, not the Gestapo, who were only an intelligence organization...it gets more ridiculous at each level and frankly, less interesting, and far less relevant. Leveling Germany solved the problem.
And so with this field - one can astound one's audience with scholarly erudition concerning Sayyid ibn Qutb and the roots of radical Wahhibism, Salifism, etc, etc, ad infinitum, without encountering the broad fact that the people murdering other people in the name of Islam are, in fact, Muslims, encouraged, supported, and celebrated vigorously by other Muslims. One can nuance one's way out of ascribing any responsibility anywhere, which the author has done, and cough indignantly at those of a cruder viewpoint that encompasses murdering the bastards right back.
And that is always the problem with writing policy around academic erudition. The latter may not matter. And it doesn't in this case, in my view. The difficulty with treating a broad terrorist movement as a series of individual crimes is that the forest is lost in view of the trees; that the level of proof needed to convict a single individual of murdering a schoolyard full of kids or a private club full of patrons may find grounds for forgiveness - a plea of insanity, for example - that are equally irrelevant to the pattern of crimes under consideration. The problem is not that, it's jihad, an activity directed not by individual psychosis, but as a collective effort under state level direction. Any strategist concerned more with ferreting out the roots of motivation than he is with how they are being orchestrated is missing the point entirely.
It's a war. The people prosecuting it know it's a war. The victims know it's a war. The people who sympathize with the murderers know it's a war. We gain nothing but misery by shielding our eyes from the fact that it's a war.
LOL. You left off the sarcasm tag.
So here is the logic of Bushes, rino leaders, Ryan’s, Kerry’s, and countless others...worse from 0bama who is a Muslim.
Close your eyes, imagine you are a rich, aristocratic family member, well plugged in politically...you know no matter what happens in your country, you are well taken care of.
Then, you build awall around your estate(much like immigration Zuckerberg did ), you hire guards, security detail, and you say all the right things to not offend anyone.
You refuse to read or believe the Ko-ran, but you are sure of what it must say...you view those who believe it contains things telling its followers to hate and kill nonbelievers schools or morons...yet ...somehow also you believe yourself to be above such silly beliefs...
You hear about violence around the world and even in your own country...this doesn’t sway your beliefs...you turn to your wife on your satin sheets and ask her, “why do they (your citizenry, plebes) behave that way, we’ve given them everything and all the best laws and government people, you would think they would appreciate us.”
I know I am spot on...these people deserve punishments fit for traitors or at least how I would treat an annoying zit.
I understand them being hesitant/unwilling to walk away from the religion, since the penalty for apostasy is death. But the core scriptures and beliefs of the creed are incompatible with Western values.
It’s time to make people make a choice.
Should he be bragging much about his role in a responsible position to be protecting us from Mohammadans in the early 2000’s?
I agree. In “Radical Islam,” the “Radical” is either redundant or unnecessary.
Islam is radical.
Islam is terrorism.
They are one and the same regardless of how they may be playing make believe at the time.
It’s not radical Islam. It’s normative, mainstream, codified Islamic doctrine. It’s what that criminal ideology is all about.
The writer, who appears to possibly be a mohammedan, is full of shiite.
In a sense (but not the one he means, I read the whole article) he’s right. No need to say “radical” Islam.
You can just say “Islam”, because the Koran, the Hadiths and all devoute religious Islamic scholars, and those who listen to them, know that the basic tenet of Islam is to push for a world wide caliphate with Sharia law implemented, and all kaffirs (non-mohammdans) killed, forcibly converted, or made into slaves.
Why are you posting this crap? The writer is so full of crap it almost made my gorge rise.
Sure it is Mr. soggybottom. If you consider the UN Ambassodor a higher post than POTUS, CIA, DHS.
As one Freeper noted.
'POTUS, CIA and DHS are headed by Mohammedans loyal to the Koran. Let that sink in.'
re: Wahhabists are akin to Southern Baptists.” That is: They read the holy text literally and are intolerant of other religious views...
This is written by a person who claims to be careful about choice of words and images? Emille clearly was incompetent to hold any position in government. But people like him do work for the gummint. That is a bigger problem than radical Islam.
He apparently thinks that the purpose of American policy should be “engaging muslim communities.” Many of us disagree with this point of view.
They won’t die here but their families will be disappointed and you are liable to be disowned. Islam is more like a culture than a religion. Even non-religious Muslims expect their family to be Muslims. It’s like an American renouncing his citizenship and moving to the Soviet Union.
It’s funny because Muslims think of Christianity the same way. They don’t really understand why we go to church so much. They think it is a social club.
A person from Iran told me that Islam is spread by murder and rape. I think he’s right.
Islam is a race?
The writer provides his credentials, then his premise is that Obama is right in his ostrich-like refusal to even acknowledge that there is a branch of Islam that is radical and lethal.
Then he directly contradicts himself by writing, “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.”
And this is a leading member of our intelligence `brain trust’? It isn’t just “preaching ideology” SEE: Attaturk airport attack today. If our leadership can’t even call it what it is, how can we expect them to lead the fight against radical Islam? Here’s how: look for more calls from the Democrats and their RAT allies for more “gun control”.
about how to engage Muslim communities
*******************************
With superior firepower
The Soviets didn't like that term. It characterized and defined them. It set the stage for the Reagan approach to the Cold War. We win, they lose.
If we don't define our enemy they will define themselves...and that includes dimocrats.
This is completely and utterly wrong. Trump has it right. Sooner or later there is no other choice than confrontation with a false religion and doctrine of islam with western culture and Christian faith in a Judeo Christian society. There is no such thing as moderate islam, unless they deny and reject sharia. There is no place for sharia in western culture, society, or government. In the end they must be separate for there is no compromise between the two. Because islam wants to conquer and rule all there can be only one outcome and that is complete and utter destruction of all islamic forms of power in any form and the end of an evil cult just like Nazi’s were destroyed.
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.
