Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-27-2017, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,834,826 times
Reputation: 1438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Yes.

And how did that work out?

Right!

It has really solved the problem!

Everything is fine now!

Peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen -- everywhere!
Do you know anything about McMaster's record? He was highly successful. Its likely that if the military had listened to McMaster earlier then the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have gone better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2017, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Florida -
10,213 posts, read 14,789,658 times
Reputation: 21845
Default State Departments list of Radical Islamic Terrorist Groups

Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady View Post
Simply because the terrorist organizations try to justify their actions in the name of Allah is not a valid reason to bring religion into the fight against terrorism. If anything, doing that exacerbates the problem by seemingly turning our actions into a religious war: Christianity versus Islam.

Basing our opposition (at least in part, even a minor part) on Biblical verses potentially places America, Christians and the Bible in a position where they could be "blamed."

Needless to say that is not desirable and certainly not my objective nor I suspect that of any person contributing to this thread.

The phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" has come to mean that Islam is to blame - regardless of how we parse it on this thread. Obama refused to use the phrase for that reason and now so has McMaster.

Words (and labels) matter.

In the current State Department list of fifty foreign terrorist organizations, forty (or more) specifically identify themselves as Islamic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Organizations
There is a worldwide Jihad being conducted by "radical Islamic groups" against Christians, Jews and anyone who does not subscribe to their radical view of Sharia law. Much of the Quran specifically instructs followers to attack and/or kill 'infidels' (non-Muslims).

The fact that many Muslims are caught-up in the Shiite versus Suni Muslim civil war, only further affirms that these "radical Islamic terrorists" are even at war with themselves (As Genesis 16:12 prophesied they would). The fact that the greater body of Muslims do not publicly renounce and disavow these radical groups may be based on fear ... or implied support for these groups. Anywhere else, including America, radical terrorism is denounced by civilized people wherever it occurs.

This is compelling evidence that referring to these groups in the same terms they refer to themselves (Islamic Jihadists and 'terrorists') is appropriate. The addition of the term "radical" simply acknowledges the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists ... nor does anyone make that claim. All of this politically correct mumbo-jumbo about labels - only attempts to ignore the obvious under the pretense of labeling it something else. If not "radical Islamic terrorism" ... what should it be called?

Last edited by jghorton; 02-27-2017 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2017, 01:27 PM
 
8,490 posts, read 3,310,354 times
Reputation: 6919
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
In the current State Department list of fifty foreign terrorist organizations, forty (or more) specifically identify themselves as Islamic groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Organizations
There is a worldwide Jihad being conducted by "radical Islamic groups" against Christians, Jews and anyone who does not subscribe to their radical view of Sharia law. Much of the Quran specifically instructs followers to attack and/or kill 'infidels' (non-Muslims).

The fact that many Muslims are caught-up in the Shiite versus Suni Muslim civil war, only further affirms that these "radical Islamic terrorists" are even at war with themselves (As Genesis 16:12 prophesied they would). The fact that the greater body of Muslims do not publicly renounce and disavow these radical groups may be based on fear ... or implied support for these groups. Anywhere else, including America, radical terrorism is denounced by civilized people wherever it occurs.
Denouncement could be considered in various ways. One on the part of individuals, anecdotally. Two, by Islamic organizations or the Imans. Three, by the governments of Islamic countries. To begin with the last ... clearly, numerous countries that are Islamic and statistically represent the "greater body" of the population within the ME support the fight against terrorism. Iraq is hopefully about to retake Mosul.

What about the Islamic community or the Ummah? My understanding of Islam is pretty much unformed - and uninformed !!! - but my general understanding is that within the Sunni community there is a strong tradition of leadership by various Imans in the so-called backyard prayer halls whose influence admittedly can supersede pronouncements of more senior religious leaders (Muftis and the like).

Still, anyone who wishes to find efforts by the Islamic community to disempower terrorists only need to spend a few minutes on Google. Large-scale efforts? What about the Amman Message (2004), the A Common Word Between Us and You (2007), the Mardin Conference (2010), or the Marrakesh Declaration (2016).

How effective are these religious pronouncements in reaching disaffected segments of the populace? Sometimes, not very - if only because they may be associated with the efforts of the elite to remain in power or to pacify the West. There's a lot of anger in the ME. But there is a partnership between many Muslim governments and clerics and the former and hopefully current US administration that my take is we should respect (per McMasters etc.).

What about the average Muslim? No argument that for many in the ME and elsewhere Islam is a way of life. For many, this is part of its beauty. For terrorists, that becomes part of its power. No doubt the average Muslim would feel sorrow for the loss of an individual to terrorism here in America. But given the turmoil that many believe *we* have imposed on their countr(ies) to expect that that same person would flock to a traveling US reporter to denounce terrorism in the NAME of their religion is, frankly, a fool's errand. The response would be ... we who have lost everything are to potentially denigrate our religion to satisfy the West?

For there's another issue here. The average Muslim is not necessarily that knowledgeable about the Qu'ran, which is written in classic Arabic, and so traditionally has turned to local Imans for guidance. To expect that the average person on the street could effectively counter the teaching of some radical Iman is unreasonable.

And why is it that so many of us many demand that? Would it really make anyone feel safer?

Moreover, to equate the silence of a potential interviewee or to confuse his tacit support of verses he has been told are in the Qu'ran or even to merge his anger at American actions with a willingness to commit or even support terrorism is a stretch.

Quote:
This is compelling evidence that referring to these groups in the same terms they refer to themselves (Islamic Jihadists and 'terrorists') is appropriate.
No. On the contrary. This is precisely the wrong thing to do. Terrorists work to "religionize" the struggle - that ISIS declared a caliphate after the fall of Mosul had tremendous propaganda value. It is in our interest to do the opposite.

Quote:
The addition of the term "radical" simply acknowledges the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists ... nor does anyone make that claim. All of this politically correct mumbo-jumbo about labels - only attempts to ignore the obvious under the pretense of labeling it something else. If not "radical Islamic terrorism" ... what should it be called?
Numerous US public figures have provided their rationale for not using the term. McMasters is reported as saying that jihadist terrorists aren't true to their professed religion and that the use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" doesn't help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups. This is a topic that you have a well-defined opinion about as do I and so we will differ.

Last edited by EveryLady; 02-27-2017 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 01:50 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,419,656 times
Reputation: 4710
We need to identify the enemy for what it is: Radical Islam.

Since 2001, we have refused to make that identification.

If we had made that identification, then our supposed Arab allies would have crushed fundamentalist Islamic groups in their countries -- Wahabbists, Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

Instead, they have been playing a "double-game" with us -- supporting us with one hand, undermining us with the other -- and we are the losers.

How long are we going to continue to stupidly follow the bad advice of generals, intel people and State Department that has resulted in 15 years of war in an ever increasing number of countries?

Last edited by dechatelet; 02-28-2017 at 02:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:16 AM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
11,119 posts, read 5,562,262 times
Reputation: 16596
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Sadly, I think it more likely that McMasters will be forced out.
Trump had better find a way to co-exist with McMasters, because if he boots his second security adviser after just a short time, the weakness of his whole administration will be revealed. Remember during the campaign, when he boasted that he knew more than all the Generals? Well, if he fires this one, the falsity of that claim will be evident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:19 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,419,656 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
Trump had better find a way to co-exist with McMasters, because if he boots his second security adviser after just a short time, the weakness of his whole administration will be revealed. Remember during the campaign, when he boasted that he knew more than all the Generals? Well, if he fires this one, the falsity of that claim will be evident.
He can boot hundreds of people if he wants.

Has nothing to do with weakness.

He'll probably have to boot lots and lots of people.

They call Washington, D.C. the "city of no consequences."

People there are used to playing games and getting away with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 10:52 AM
 
29,435 posts, read 9,617,720 times
Reputation: 3450
Two kinds of people...

There are those who feel it is ultimately important to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" as if this is what makes a difference when it comes to addressing and/or preventing terrorism.

This notion or tactic is truly laughable when it comes to what terrorists are thinking and what those actually responsible to stop them are thinking. A debate had over lattes perhaps, certainly something for Trump supporters to get excited about, anti-Muslim folks in general, Religious Hard Right Christians, as if most intelligent people don't know who is killing who and why. Some folks need to be more explicit for their own personal reasons, not so much to help others better understand the true sources of terrorism...

Then there are those who feel the fight against terrorism is far more complicated and difficult than can possibly be represented by this ridiculous "sort of manufactured" issue (as Obama put it) over what to call it. These are people who simply don't find it worthwhile or productive in the least to expend even a little amount of time or energy arguing about the need to use this word or that rather than focus on what will actually help the fight against terrorism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 10:53 AM
 
29,435 posts, read 9,617,720 times
Reputation: 3450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
Trump had better find a way to co-exist with McMasters, because if he boots his second security adviser after just a short time, the weakness of his whole administration will be revealed. Remember during the campaign, when he boasted that he knew more than all the Generals? Well, if he fires this one, the falsity of that claim will be evident.
Surely we know the falsity of these Trump claims without the need for further proof. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 10:54 AM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,078,944 times
Reputation: 4794
Radical Islamic Terrorism
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 11:05 AM
 
29,435 posts, read 9,617,720 times
Reputation: 3450
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
He can boot hundreds of people if he wants.

Has nothing to do with weakness.

He'll probably have to boot lots and lots of people.

They call Washington, D.C. the "city of no consequences."

People there are used to playing games and getting away with it.
Maybe not weakness. More like doofishness I think...

Washington DC is also everyone's favorite punching bag, because let's face it, who except the rare bird who decides to get into politics has the patience and skin that it takes to be a politician, or the ability to deal with what our system of government requires, what it takes to govern, with the likes of 535 other members of Congress? Who can handle all the people who don't agree with them and still serve in a way that keeps so many people from criticizing them, and not just their thinking, but their character, their families, their patriotism.

We have this mud-slinging political process and expect everyone to play without getting muddy. We let corporations be citizens and spend millions on political sway and then we wonder why everyone seeking office needs to chase that money unless they have already made that money by other means, typically no less innocent.

Right, this comment is no more specific than the one above in terms of who in Washington is better than the next, or maybe they're all do-nothing low-lifes except for Trump who also seems to think that criticizing everyone is productive, but I really have to wonder if there are not more reasonable and better ways to work toward progress. I mean if we're going to continue bashing all things government, then let's tear up the Constitution and start over already!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:42 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top