Obama "rewrites" US National security policy: Jihad, Islamic fundamentalism deleted

[Noobtastic]

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the US national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on US foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=172564

So what's next? Is Obama going to penalize citizens that openly discuss the threat homicidal Muslims pose to America and her allies?

National Security shouldn't be politically correct. Saudi Arabia is not the 51st state.

Perhaps Obama would feel more comfortable acting as the Secretary General of the organizations of Islamic Conference rather than POTUS.

 

[JSt0rm]

jpost lol

 

[Noobtastic]

jpost lol

it's Associated Press.

 

[irishScott]

*sigh* fucking liberal PC. One thing I'm absolutely with Israel on is their racial profiling. Think an Israeli officer put it nicely "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim". Wish that attitude was more prevalent here.

 

[jackschmittusa]

It has nothing to do with "politically correct". If you really think that, then you are ignorant, stupid, whatever.

Maybe you should sign up for a course on international politics.

 

[PeshakJang]

It has nothing to do with "politically correct". If you really think that, then you are ignorant, stupid, whatever.

Maybe you should sign up for a course on international politics.

Do explain

 

[dmcowen674]

Obama "rewrites" US National security policy: Jihad, Islamic fundamentalism deleted

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=172564

So what's next? Is Obama going to penalize citizens that openly discuss the threat homicidal Muslims pose to America and her allies?

National Security shouldn't be politically correct. Saudi Arabia is not the 51st state.

Perhaps Obama would feel more comfortable acting as the Secretary General of the organizations of Islamic Conference rather than POTUS.

Awesome

Obama and Dems have learned well from you Revisionist History Republicans.

Don't like it when you're not doing it eh?

Too bad, you're free to leave. Goodbye

 

[bozack]

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=172564

So what's next? Is Obama going to penalize citizens that openly discuss the threat homicidal Muslims pose to America and her allies?

National Security shouldn't be politically correct. Saudi Arabia is not the 51st state.

Perhaps Obama would feel more comfortable acting as the Secretary General of the organizations of Islamic Conference rather than POTUS.

Just one more thing to guarantee he won't get re-elected.

 

[Noobtastic]

Just one more thing to guarantee he won't get re-elected.

I think Obama is in for 2012 unless the Repubs get a serious candidate.

Obama could shake hands with Osama Bin Laden and still get re-elected by the delusional electorate.

 

[actuarial]

*sigh* fucking liberal PC. One thing I'm absolutely with Israel on is their racial profiling. Think an Israeli officer put it nicely "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim". Wish that attitude was more prevalent here.

So how does that actually help you catch terrorists? If this method is so good, shouldn't we be using it to catch other criminals?

It seems you're fine giving up other people's liberty to increase your safety. Hopefully for you no one ever deems a group which you could be identified with as 'unsafe'.

Finally: can you tell me exactly how you're going to determine who is a Muslim.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well this should definitely make the freedom fighters who are against our oppression in the overseas contingency operation hate us less.

 

[shiner]

Awesome

Obama and Dems have learned well from you Revisionist History Republicans.

Don't like it when you're not doing it eh?

Too bad, you're free to leave. Goodbye

My offer to buy you a one way ticket to Somalia still stands. You just have to promise to stay there since you love it so much and consider it a bastion of equality

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=172564

So what's next? Is Obama going to penalize citizens that openly discuss the threat homicidal Muslims pose to America and her allies?

National Security shouldn't be politically correct. Saudi Arabia is not the 51st state.

Perhaps Obama would feel more comfortable acting as the Secretary General of the organizations of Islamic Conference rather than POTUS.

Smart enough not to name a Mid-East operation a crusade, huh?? Smart enough to put some diplomatic language in a policy and diffuse Muslim antagonism?? Sorry Obama burst your balloon!

 

[MotF Bane]

My offer to buy you a one way ticket to Somalia still stands. You just have to promise to stay there since you love it so much and consider it a bastion of equality

:awe:

 

[irishScott]

So how does that actually help you catch terrorists? If this method is so good, shouldn't we be using it to catch other criminals?

It seems you're fine giving up other people's liberty to increase your safety. Hopefully for you no one ever deems a group which you could be identified with as 'unsafe'.

Finally: can you tell me exactly how you're going to determine who is a Muslim.

How it helps (or not) depends entirely on the implementation. The trick is making a system that doesn't actively infringe on other people's liberty. ie: Streamline the process of running someone's identity through criminal databases to the point where we could do it seamlessly for one group.

Don't read too much into that, just off the top of my head and I know there are mucho problems with it, but suffice to say if implemented properly the idea can be used to increase security with minimal friction.

And don't get me wrong, I said I wished that sort of attitude was present here, not that such a system was implemented. The threat to the US isn't immediate enough to warrant such measures, but in cases like the OP facts are facts and shouldn't be concealed just to satiate some countries who would get the wrong impression.

As for the philosophical issue, I believe that once you associate with a group that intends to do harm to others, then you forfeit some liberties by default, weather you've done anything or not. Granted the situation would have to be extreme, as it is for Israel. The US thankfully doesn't have suicide bombers on it's doorstep.

 

[Anarchist420]

Big damn fucking deal. He's killing a lot more muslims in Afghanistan than Bush ever did.

I don't get why people don't realize they're after us because we're occupiers and we're aiding their enemies, not because of our culture. Our culture is closer to theirs' than France's is, so they would go after France if it were a culture issue.

 

[irishScott]

Big damn fucking deal. He's killing a lot more muslims in Afghanistan than Bush ever did.

I don't get why people don't realize they're after us because we're occupiers and we're aiding their enemies, not because of our culture. Our culture is closer to theirs' than France's is, so they would go after France if it were a culture issue.

Who's "they"?

 

[Moonbeam]

Another fucking idiot starts a thread.

 

[actuarial]

How it helps (or not) depends entirely on the implementation. The trick is making a system that doesn't actively infringe on other people's liberty. ie: Streamline the process of running someone's identity through criminal databases to the point where we could do it seamlessly for one group.

Don't read too much into that, just off the top of my head and I know there are mucho problems with it, but suffice to say if implemented properly the idea can be used to increase security with minimal friction.

And don't get me wrong, I said I wished that sort of attitude was present here, not that such a system was implemented. The threat to the US isn't immediate enough to warrant such measures, but in cases like the OP facts are facts and shouldn't be concealed just to satiate some countries who would get the wrong impression.

As for the philosophical issue, I believe that once you associate with a group that intends to do harm to others, then you forfeit some liberties by default, weather you've done anything or not. Granted the situation would have to be extreme, as it is for Israel. The US thankfully doesn't have suicide bombers on it's doorstep.

If this miraculous streamlined system were possible, it would probably work for all people, not a group, and we wouldn't have this issue.

The problem with this attitude is where it leads. If we're going to ask Muslims to sacrifice liberties for associating with violent Muslims, we should be asking Christians to sacrifice liberties because other Christians kill abortion doctors.

Further: there's no way to tell a person's Muslim. Which means you portion off people either by a) non-racial appearance cues, which won't work as terrorists will just show up in jeans and a ball cap, or b) by skin colour, which means people are sacrificing liberties whether they 'choose' to associate with a group or not.

Would you want to live in a country that's willing to cross that line? I wouldn't.

 

[irishScott]

If this miraculous streamlined system were possible, it would probably work for all people, not a group, and we wouldn't have this issue.

The problem with this attitude is where it leads. If we're going to ask Muslims to sacrifice liberties for associating with violent Muslims, we should be asking Christians to sacrifice liberties because other Christians kill abortion doctors.

Further: there's no way to tell a person's Muslim. Which means you portion off people either by a) non-racial appearance cues, which won't work as terrorists will just show up in jeans and a ball cap, or b) by skin colour, which means people are sacrificing liberties whether they 'choose' to associate with a group or not.

Would you want to live in a country that's willing to cross that line? I wouldn't.

Like I said, the threat isn't immediate enough. The Muslims living within and/or crossing American borders are much less likely to be a threat than the Muslims in and around Israel.

And I have no idea how such a system would actually work. Just saying that, in theory, it could; and under extreme circumstances, I'd be fine going over that line to a degree. Now if we start doing something crazy and invasive like strip searching everyone with an Arab name, then I'll have serious issues.

But the implementation of racial profiling is another thread. What I was talking about was the attitude. Facts should not be obscured to prevent offending other people. Facts and just facts, and anyone who takes offense at them is the one with the problem.

 

[actuarial]

But the implementation of racial profiling is another thread. What I was talking about was the attitude. Facts should not be obscured to prevent offending other people. Facts and just facts, and anyone who takes offense at them is the one with the problem.

I'm talking about the attitude too, and never once did I say we should obscure facts.

I'm saying using those facts to justify taking a select number of people's liberties away does more harm to a 'free' society than good, even if it COULD be perfectly implemented (which it can't, at least in NA which is particularly diverse).

This attitude and judging people by their actions cannot coexist IMO.

 

[irishScott]

I'm talking about the attitude too, and never once did I say we should obscure facts.

I'm saying using those facts to justify taking a select number of people's liberties away does more harm to a 'free' society than good, even if it COULD be perfectly implemented (which it can't, at least in NA which is particularly diverse).

This attitude and judging people by their actions cannot coexist IMO.

Yes it can. Hell it does everyday. If I'm walking down the street and I see a couple of guys who look like a gangbangers. I have no idea if they're gangbangers or not, or if they've done anything or not, but that impression is going to affect my actions around them.

Now am I going to immediately call the cops or pull out my concealed and shoot them over that assumption? Of course not. But I would be much more cautious in my dealing with them. Hell if I got to know them it's possible we could become the best of friends.

So IMO racial profiling is actually healthy if it is done with the knowledge that you are not making judgements, but assumptions; and in the event one specific assumption proves wrong you must be ready to compensate for any damage it may have caused.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Big damn fucking deal. He's killing a lot more muslims in Afghanistan than Bush ever did.

I don't get why people don't realize they're after us because we're occupiers and we're aiding their enemies, not because of our culture. Our culture is closer to theirs' than France's is, so they would go after France if it were a culture issue.

It can not be because of the US being occupiers. What did they do to France when France was occupying that region. Nothing

 

[Freshgeardude]

Repost/Thread merge

Fern
Super Moderator

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=172576

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the US national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

oh please... lets not offend the very terrorists which cause disorder in a region, by renaming them to something nice.

Terrorists are terrorists. in this day and age, they are mostly Islamic extremists, aka Jihadists. To call them otherwise simply downplays their acts of terrorism.


I swear, I dont think obama has once ever admitted to believing the 9/11 attacks were considered terrrorism, rather just an "attack."

 

[GoPackGo]

His "Muslim Faith" won't allow it.