"Radical Islamic Terrorism"

[Perknose]

Remember Trump harrumphing at the craven inability of Obama or Hilary or the liberals in general to call radical Islamic terrorism that?

Remember?

Well, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, his new National Security Advisor, isn't as godawful ignorant as The Big Orange and his merry band of asshole xenophobes.

President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.

It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.

[...]

In his language, General McMaster is closer to the positions of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both took pains to separate acts of terrorism from Islamic teaching, in part because they argued that the United States needed the help of Muslim allies to hunt down terrorists.

“This is very much a repudiation of his new boss’s lexicon and worldview,” said William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The ISIS Apocalypse.”

“McMaster, like Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United States should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” Mr. McCants said.

“There is a deep hunger for McMaster’s view in the interagency,” he added, referring to the process by which the State Department, Pentagon and other agencies funnel recommendations through the National Security Council. “The fact that he has made himself the champion of this view makes people realize they have an advocate to express dissenting opinions.”

Thank God that treasonous Gen. Flynn got outed in time, because it has allowed this one small spark of adult sanity to break out right in the middle of the Clown College that is the Trump administration.

 

[desura]

Thing about Trump is he doesn't understand politics at all. Most people don't understand politics. On a theoretical objective level, I do believe Islam itself is a problem, more than other religions. But on a pragmatic level, it costs nothing to pay lip service and doing otherwise just makes your job harder. So this demand that our government openly denigrate Islam is counter-productive and is about emotional satisfaction.

 

[Jaskalas]

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

One could argue the bold, but whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
Such messaging to dissociate terrorists from Islam weakens the terrorists. It is simply beneficial to do so.

 

[amenx]

Isis and Bannon do not want to hear this.

 

[disappoint]

President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

The truth is modernity has changed and is actively changing Islam from a cult of deadly, intolerant, immoral, xenophobic assholes (to use our Forum Director's favorite insult) into a more tolerant one just like it is and has been for the other religions.

The original cults/religions were quite immoral by today's standards of ethics and morality. They are not the source of morality in the slightest. The only reason they have to change is because they can't get away with it anymore. At least not outside their enclaves for very long.

The original religion calls for extreme terrorist acts like killing apostates and honor killing.

 

[disappoint]

One could argue the bold, but whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
Such messaging to dissociate terrorists from Islam weakens the terrorists. It is simply beneficial to do so.

I'm all for weakening terrorists, even if we have to tell a useful lie to do so. Just as long as we know what the truth is and don't lie to ourselves.

The question is, do you really think you can weaken them with a lie? Or do you risk strengthening them when they expose your lie? Assuming it is a lie, which, as you said is debatable.

 

[justoh]

Strange move, considering his healthy disdain for islam was the only good thing about trump. Sad.

 

[MongGrel]

Thing about Trump is he doesn't understand politics at all. Most people don't understand politics. On a theoretical objective level, I do believe Islam itself is a problem, more than other religions. But on a pragmatic level, it costs nothing to pay lip service and doing otherwise just makes your job harder. So this demand that our government openly denigrate Islam is counter-productive and is about emotional satisfaction.

Muslims have never been more of a problem these days than Catholics vs Protestants.

Daesh is the problem.

 

[Jaskalas]

The question is, do you really think you can weaken them with a lie?

It's a safer world when crazies wanting to do harm do not hear such messaging that <Religion> is a place for them. Since September 11th we've been flooded with those ideas, which both boosts "recruits" who think they've joined something meaningful, and causes Americans to isolate Americans who happen to be Muslim. We need to both discourage that recruitment and encourage cooperation and assimilation. Else...

Or do you risk strengthening them when they expose your lie? Assuming it is a lie, which, as you said is debatable.

I wonder what a situation looks like when it comes to that.

 

[raildogg]

First America makes these socalled terrorists grow and prosper by creating a certain environment for that to happen.
Then America gives the solution of invading these countries to destroy the said problem.

This is how the game is played.

You create the problem and then you say you know how to fix it. America's been playing this game for a long, long time. Remember, this country started by claiming that the evil Native Americans were out to destroy the Christian Europeans. This gave them the reason to annihilate the Native Americans. The same thing is happening today but in a different way. Of course, most people won't see it that way or want to admit it.

 

[raildogg]

U.S. paid P.R. firm $540 million to make fake al-Qaida videos in Iraq propaganda program

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/u-s...e-al-qaida-videos-in-iraq-propaganda-program/

"Bell Pottinger, a London-based P.R. firm, created fake videos that appeared to be the work of al-Qaida, the Islamist extremist group formerly headed by Osama bin Laden. It also created news stories that looked as though they were produced by Arab media outlets, and distributed them through Middle Eastern news networks.

The company worked in Camp Victory, the U.S. military base in Baghdad, side-by-side with high-ranking U.S. military officers.

The propaganda videos were personally approved by Gen. David Petraeus — then the commander of U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, who would go on to become the director of the CIA. On some occasions, even the White House signed off on the propaganda materials."

 

[HTFOff]

Obama showed us how it's done because we all know words mean more than actions. Continue to bomb the f*ck out of muslim nations. But watch those words.

Only nice words. Wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of America.

 

[HomerJS]

Now that Trump is refusing to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism have you people who insisted we need to just "say the words" stand by it?

Remember we do have your past statements. I believe one of our esteemed members fell for this trap when its pointed out righties choose team over principles.

 

[woolfe9998]

We're told that democrats won't say "Islamic terrorism" because of political correctness. I guess McMaster is a paragon of PC, as was the Bush administration when it called Islam a "religion of peace." These brainiacs will never understand why it damages our security to behave like we're at war with an entire religion, and why it's important to separate the terrorists from the rest of them rather than conflating them. It has nothing to do with not wanting to offend snowflake Muslims. It has everything to do with not giving them reasons to radicalize because when they radicalize, they do things like what happened in Manchester yesterday.

 

[Zaap]

We're told that democrats won't say "Islamic terrorism" because of political correctness. I guess McMaster is a paragon of PC, as was the Bush administration when it called Islam a "religion of peace." These brainiacs will never understand why it damages our security to behave like we're at war with an entire religion, and why it's important to separate the terrorists from the rest of them rather than conflating them. It has nothing to do with not wanting to offend snowflake Muslims. It has everything to do with not giving them reasons to radicalize because when they radicalize, they do things like what happened in Manchester yesterday.

Do you even understand what you're saying?

This is the weirdest, most condecending attitude.

You're basically saying you think SO LITTLE of 'THEM' as you refer to Muslims, that everyone needs to treat them with kids gloves lest they 'radicalize' and start blowing people up!

Your nonsense is not only wrongheaded in practice... it's amazingly disparaging of the people you supposedly think are mostly good. You're saying pretty much you think 'THEY' are ALL potenial terrorists... just they're a thin-skin away from going full blown!

It's an amazingly condescending attitude...but not to worry... I actually think it's pretty common.

 

[agent00f]

Do you even understand what you're saying?

This is the weirdest, most condecending attitude.

You're basically saying you think SO LITTLE of 'THEM' as you refer to Muslims, that everyone needs to treat them with kids gloves lest they 'radicalize' and start blowing people up!

Your nonsense is not only wrongheaded in practice... it's amazingly disparaging of the people you supposedly think are mostly good. You're saying pretty much you think 'THEY' are ALL potenial terrorists... just they're a thin-skin away from going full blown!

It's an amazingly condescending attitude...but not to worry... I actually think it's pretty common.

Sure, advising you & peers to stop being racist bigots is really just the libtards treating muslim too kindly.

Speaking of which, what it does it say about said peers who need to be cajoled w/ merry christmas least they think it's a war against christianity. Won't want to know what people like that are liable to do if they're categorically defined as criminals.

 

[woolfe9998]

Do you even understand what you're saying?

This is the weirdest, most condecending attitude.

You're basically saying you think SO LITTLE of 'THEM' as you refer to Muslims, that everyone needs to treat them with kids gloves lest they 'radicalize' and start blowing people up!

Your nonsense is not only wrongheaded in practice... it's amazingly disparaging of the people you supposedly think are mostly good. You're saying pretty much you think 'THEY' are ALL potenial terrorists... just they're a thin-skin away from going full blown!

It's an amazingly condescending attitude...but not to worry... I actually think it's pretty common.

Yeah, my attitude on this being "condescending" is apparently a running theme. I don't know why you guys think it's condescending. It's simple logic, cause and effect. If you make people think that you consider them an enemy, some percentage of that group may radicalize. It might only be 1 in 10000 of them who do so, but that is enough to cause plenty of mayhem. It's not that I think every Muslims will radicalize. But a teenager who already may have issues and is on the fence can be pushed over by things like, say, noticing that we elected a POTUS who said during the campaign that he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Recognizing that anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from our leaders is a security risk is hardly condescending. It's just being realistic. Anger is a natural human response when a group to which one belongs is being attacked. Not just Muslims. Anyone.

It isn't only a matter of radicalizing - it's also that we need help from friendly Muslim nations in combating terrorism and such rhetoric may not favorably dispose them toward us. How do you think a country like, say, Yemen, responds to a ban on all immigration from their country into America?

If you think I'm just being condescending, then you must think that of both the two previous administrations, and also Trump's current national security adviser. I'm hardly the only one who thinks this hard line rhetoric that conservatives favor does nothing but inflame the situation and damage US security. I honestly have no idea what you guys think is the constructive benefit of suggesting that this is a problem that is endemic to the religion. It suggests that every Muslim is either a terrorist, a terrorist supporter, or else is misinterpreting their own religion. I see nothing whatsoever good that can come of such a rhetorical strategy.

In any event, you're entitled to disagree with my opinion on this, but drop the straw mannery of assuming this is about political correctness and that I think Muslims are a bunch of hyper-sensitive snowflakes who need to be coddled. Terrorism is an asymmetric style of warfare. It doesn't take very many people radicalizing to produce a security threat, and it is the responsibility of our leaders to prevent that from happening. If you think a different strategy will keep us safe, fine, but frame the issue property as a debate over security.

I'm all in favor of killing terrorists. I'm also in favor of doing what we can to prevent others from stepping in to take the place of the ones we killed. I know conservatives favor the former approach, but I'm at a loss as to what conservatives feel we should do about the latter. Please enlighten us.

 

[xthetenth]

Do you even understand what you're saying?

This is the weirdest, most condecending attitude.

You're basically saying you think SO LITTLE of 'THEM' as you refer to Muslims, that everyone needs to treat them with kids gloves lest they 'radicalize' and start blowing people up!

Your nonsense is not only wrongheaded in practice... it's amazingly disparaging of the people you supposedly think are mostly good. You're saying pretty much you think 'THEY' are ALL potenial terrorists... just they're a thin-skin away from going full blown!

It's an amazingly condescending attitude...but not to worry... I actually think it's pretty common.

We're trying to counter the (very easy to back frankly) narrative that the West is gearing up for genocide. If you've got to fight or die, then joining the guys who are already fighting starts to make sense, even if they're total assholes who you have good reason to hate.

There's a coalition against ISIS in the Muslim world for a damn reason. It's because they're actually the people the right claims all Muslims are, and nobody else likes them. All we want is to get to a place where we don't feel compelled to go cater every damned wedding in the Middle East with hellfires and then act surprised when someone who's lost half their family to our action decides that taking action is needed.

Is it surprising that a decent number of Palestinians support Hamas when it seems like if they don't fight Israeli settlers will eventually bulldoze their corner of their ghetto and leave them with nothing? The hardliners on each side hurt the other side, and their actions are used as justification by the other side's hardliners to hurt the other side and pretty quick they're circling the drain of atrocity.

The truth is modernity has changed and is actively changing Islam from a cult of deadly, intolerant, immoral, xenophobic assholes (to use our Forum Director's favorite insult) into a more tolerant one just like it is and has been for the other religions.

The original cults/religions were quite immoral by today's standards of ethics and morality. They are not the source of morality in the slightest. The only reason they have to change is because they can't get away with it anymore. At least not outside their enclaves for very long.

The original religion calls for extreme terrorist acts like killing apostates and honor killing.

Islam isn't a monolith. Some strains are doing quite well. Others aren't. Much like some of the nastier strains of Christian fundamentalism, they're a reaction to the world passing their values by. Unlike the Christian flavors which are pretty much cordoned off into areas like sub-Saharan Africa that nobody cares about, for various reasons the various reactionary flavors of Islam have more relevance to the outside world. A lot of this has to do with what an utter, breathtaking mess the breakup of the Ottoman Empire was. Because of that, there's no real national identities that are particularly strong. Pan-Arabism failed a while back. Israel was not to Egypt what France was to Prussia, and Egypt couldn't handle the job of making the United Arab Republic work. That leaves all sorts of what would be marginal political groups in areas that modernity had treated well in relative power. When the early war failures of Iran's military in the wake of the revolution let the mullahs chase out Bani-Sadr and co-opt the democracy, they also purged communists, who were relevant before this point. Modernity has not treated the Middle East well, so people who want to fight against its exponents and return to a poorly realized idea of what the past once was have more power in proportion. That doesn't mean they're everyone or even necessarily a majority, just that they're enough to cause serious problems.

 

[Zaap]

Yeah, my attitude on this being "condescending" is apparently a running theme. I don't know why you guys think it's condescending. It's simple

..mindedness.

You're essentially saying something along the lines of "Treat black people nice... OR they will rob you!!"

Yeah but see, that's stupid. Because there's NOTHING in the world you could do to most black people to turn them into robbers or gang members or any other such dumb stereotype held only by racists and people who aren't very bright like yourself.

Muslims aren't just 'turned into radicals' even because there are some other people racist against them, and certainly not just over silly bullshit like not walking on eggshells around them. NONE of the tripe people like you spout as reasons 'Oh the poor dears!" actually turns anyone radical.

To believe so- you're actually saying YOU'RE the one that believes they are all terrorists- you just have to coddle and appease them to keep them from being that way. It's AMAZINGLY condescending, but then so is MUCH of liberalism on subjects like these.

 

[Mandres]

..mindedness.

You're essentially saying something along the lines of "Treat black people nice... OR they will rob you!!"

Yeah but see, that's stupid. Because there's NOTHING in the world you could do to most black people to turn them into robbers or gang members or any other such dumb stereotype held only by racists and people who aren't very bright like yourself.

Muslims aren't just 'turned into radicals' even because there are some other people racist against them, and certainly not just over silly bullshit like not walking on eggshells around them. NONE of the tripe people like you spout as reasons 'Oh the poor dears!" actually turns anyone radical.

To believe so- you're actually saying YOU'RE the one that believes they are all terrorists- you just have to coddle and appease them to keep them from being that way. It's AMAZINGLY condescending, but then so is MUCH of liberalism on subjects like these.

I believe that the diplomacy experts, including Gen. McMaster, are in a position to know whether applying a certain label or using a certain phrase is helpful or harmful to America's interests. The people who seem knowledgeable about such matters (Obama, McMaster, senior members of the security agencies and state dept) have advised that "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is a counter-productive phrase. The ones making a controversy over it (Fox News, Breitbart, Flynn, Trump) are just making a wedge issue to sell their particular brand of "fuck you liberals" conservatism to middle America.

I choose to believe the people who are in a position to know the facts - not the ones who are trying to influence me to vote their ideology.

 

[agent00f]

..mindedness.

You're essentially saying something along the lines of "Treat black people nice... OR they will rob you!!"

Yeah but see, that's stupid. Because there's NOTHING in the world you could do to most black people to turn them into robbers or gang members or any other such dumb stereotype held only by racists and people who aren't very bright like yourself.

Muslims aren't just 'turned into radicals' even because there are some other people racist against them, and certainly not just over silly bullshit like not walking on eggshells around them. NONE of the tripe people like you spout as reasons 'Oh the poor dears!" actually turns anyone radical.

To believe so- you're actually saying YOU'RE the one that believes they are all terrorists- you just have to coddle and appease them to keep them from being that way. It's AMAZINGLY condescending, but then so is MUCH of liberalism on subjects like these.

No, they're saying that low life racists who define blacks as criminals are being counterproductive. I wouldn't disagree but there are better ways to describe the situation as I just did.

It's merely your place in this to carry water for somewhat worse degenerates so that they can carry out their role for conservatism.

 

[Zaap]

The people who seem knowledgeable about such matters (Obama, McMaster, senior members of the security agencies and state dept) have advised that "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is a counter-productive phrase.

Holy shit you just typed it!!

You probably just turned 20 or 30 of 'them' into terrorists!

Careful, you silly fool!

 

[xthetenth]

Holy shit you just typed it!!

You probably just turned 20 or 30 of 'them' into terrorists!

Careful, you silly fool!

Do you live in a world where a country's leadership doesn't represent their country? What matters is the people with the power to make decisions to commit us to yet another war or send out more drones to kill anyone we find suspicious. The only time schmucks on the internet make a difference is when there's crowds of them baying for blood or when their regurgitated talking points get major play across the media.

 

[woolfe9998]

..mindedness.

You're essentially saying something along the lines of "Treat black people nice... OR they will rob you!!"

Yeah but see, that's stupid. Because there's NOTHING in the world you could do to most black people to turn them into robbers or gang members or any other such dumb stereotype held only by racists and people who aren't very bright like yourself.

Muslims aren't just 'turned into radicals' even because there are some other people racist against them, and certainly not just over silly bullshit like not walking on eggshells around them. NONE of the tripe people like you spout as reasons 'Oh the poor dears!" actually turns anyone radical.

To believe so- you're actually saying YOU'RE the one that believes they are all terrorists- you just have to coddle and appease them to keep them from being that way. It's AMAZINGLY condescending, but then so is MUCH of liberalism on subjects like these.

You read what I wrote, ignored it, quoted a fragment, and repeated your initial criticism of my argument. I try to have intelligent discussions with people like you but it's pointless. You're just going to keep mis-characterizing and over-simplifying what I wrote. Believe whatever you wish. You're not worthy of my time.

 

[woolfe9998]

I believe that the diplomacy experts, including Gen. McMaster, are in a position to know whether applying a certain label or using a certain phrase is helpful or harmful to America's interests. The people who seem knowledgeable about such matters (Obama, McMaster, senior members of the security agencies and state dept) have advised that "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is a counter-productive phrase. The ones making a controversy over it (Fox News, Breitbart, Flynn, Trump) are just making a wedge issue to sell their particular brand of "fuck you liberals" conservatism to middle America.

I choose to believe the people who are in a position to know the facts - not the ones who are trying to influence me to vote their ideology.

Yeah, liberal snowflakes like McMasters and many, many counter-terrorism experts say the same thing. I have to wonder why these otherwise conservative individuals have suddenly been overcome with liberals pc snowflake syndrome. I really think Zaap needs to take up his arguments with the experts who are saying the same thing as we are.