1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Officials were NOT allowed to said "radical islamic" under Obama

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Amiga, Feb 25, 2017.

Page 1 of 4
  1. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,916
    Likes Received:
    18,671
    Stengel explain why he couldn't utter the words.

    And just now - McMaster Breaks with Administration on Views of Islam - The new national security adviser told his staff that the label "radical Islamic terrorism" was not helpful.



    Link

    Richard Stengel is a fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School.

    Radical Islamic extremism.

    There, I’ve said it.

    For three years, as under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, I would not and could not utter that phrase. No one in the Obama administration could or did. We used the much less specific term “violent extremism.” As in “countering violent extremism,” which is what we called much of our anti-Islamic State efforts.

    And for all of that time, we were collectively excoriated by conservatives, Republicans and Donald J. Trump.

    “These are radical Islamic terrorists, and she won’t even mention the word, and nor will President Obama,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Hillary Clinton at a presidential debate last year. “Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is, or at least say the name.”

    The implication is that we were all somehow too timid or too politically correct to say it.

    But the reason was a much more practical one: To defeat radical Islamic extremism, we needed our Islamic allies — the Jordanians, the Emiratis, the Egyptians, the Saudis — and they believed that term unfairly vilified a whole religion.

    They also told us that they did not consider the Islamic State to be Islamic, and its grotesque violence against Muslims proved it. We took a lot of care to describe the Islamic State as a terrorist group that acted in the name of Islam. Sure, behind the scenes, our allies understood better than anyone that the Islamic State was a radical perversion of Islam, that it held a dark appeal to a minority of Sunni Muslims, but it didn’t help to call them radical Islamic terrorists.

    Now the Trump administration wants to toss out the term “violent extremism” and the rubric we used to fight it. Instead, they are renaming it “countering Islamic extremism,” or “countering radical Islamic extremism.”

    Fine. Abandon the name, but let’s not abandon the strategy. First, let’s acknowledge that it’s working. The Islamic State as a military force, much less as a caliphate, is on the ropes in Iraq and Syria. The group has not had a military victory in a year and a half. The flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria is down by 90 percent, according to the Defense Department. The liberation of Mosul is on the horizon.

    Second, let’s recognize the truth of what King Abdullah of Jordan has said over and over: “This is our fight.” And by that he meant that it is Islam’s fight.

    It is a misconception that the Islamic State is focused on fighting us. I led the State Department’s agency that sought to counter the Islamic State’s propaganda efforts and saw this firsthand. More than 80 percent of the Islamic State’s propaganda is in Arabic. Russian is the second-most-used language, while English and French are tied for third. The United States is not the Islamic State’s main audience. We have always been the distant enemy.

    So, jettison “violent extremism,” but let our Arab allies know that “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism” refers only to the tiny fraction of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims who have embraced violence. Tell them we need their help both on the military battlefield and in the information and intelligence space. And be specific: “We are fighting the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and their radical Islamic imitators like Boko Haram.” After all, “radical Islam” is only a shade less vague than “violent extremism.”

    The Islamic State is not just a terrorist group, it is an idea. Its rallying cry is that the West is hostile to Islam and that every good Muslim has a duty to join the caliphate. Most of the group’s propaganda was not violent at all. I saw thousands of tweets about how beautiful the caliphate was. There were videos of kids on Ferris wheels and jihadi fighters distributing cotton candy. I remember one tweet showing a shiny apple and the words, in Arabic, “The caliphate is bountiful.”

    It is not up to us to say what is Islamic and what is not. Only the voices of mainstream Muslims and independent clerics in Muslim countries can create a narrative that refutes the Islamic State’s and offers a more positive alternative. A tweet from the United States government saying the Islamic State is a distortion of Islam is not going to hurt the group. Instead, it will help its recruiting.

    That is why the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is deeply counterproductive in the fight against Islamic extremism. It has already been reported that the Islamic State has called it “the blessed ban” because it supports the Islamic State’s position that America hates Islam. The clause in the order that gives Christians preferential treatment will be seen as confirming the Islamic State’s apocalyptic narrative that Islam is in a fight to the death against the Christian crusaders. The images of Muslim visitors being turned away at American airports will only inflame those who seek to do us harm.

    Two years ago, just before Ramadan, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s spokesman, said: Don’t bother coming to the caliphate, but commit acts of violence against the enemy wherever you are. The call was no longer religious or ideological — what the group sought to do was exploit vulnerability. Mr. Adnani was, in effect, saying, “Whatever angers you — whether it’s your boss or your neighbors or the police — commit acts of violence in the Islamic State’s name.”

    Thus, the black flag of the Islamic State became a flag of convenience for any complaint. Now the travel ban, despite being blocked by the courts, has given the group ammunition to weaponize grievance here in America. President Trump may become its No. 1 recruiting tool.

    The Islamic State will go away, but violent extremism will not. The way to defeat radical Islamic extremism is to help our Islamic allies and promote the voices of mainstream Islam that reject everything the Islamic State does and stands for. Defeating the Islamic State on the military battlefield is only temporary. Violent extremism — or whatever you call it — must be defeated on the battlefield of ideas.
     
    #1 Amiga, Feb 25, 2017
  2. AroundTheWorld

    AroundTheWorld Insufferable 98er
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    68,554
    Likes Received:
    46,098
    On this one, Trump is right and Obama was wrong. The contortions Obama and his people went through to avoid calling a spade a spade pissed many people off. That in fact helped Trump, a lot.

    What the writer of the piece above completely ignores is the connecting tissue. He calls the Saudis an ally, and says that the Obama administration didn't want to piss them off. There are so many logical flaws in that guy's argument, it is laughable. He should be made to explain the difference between the ideology of the Saudi rulers vs. ISIS.
     
    #2 AroundTheWorld, Feb 25, 2017
    Nook likes this.
  3. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    24,028
    Likes Received:
    19,943
    Trump knowingly took the opportunity to become the blockbuster recruiting tool for radical jihadist groups and did it anyways for political points. Shows his priorities.

    We as Americans can say radical Islam all we want but we will never be used to recruits terrorists. The president of the United States however...

    The question to ask conservatives is ..."is being non-PC that important to you that you'd risk even one person getting radicalized here in the United States that could perform a terrorist attack?"

    If in the end it's really just about being PC who cares. The President is creating propaganda and proving their doctrine to be correct in their eyes therefor validating their beliefs that this is a war on their religion. Trump is trying to prove a point politically all the while making us less safe.
     
    #3 dobro1229, Feb 25, 2017
  4. sirbaihu

    sirbaihu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,517
    Likes Received:
    2,851
    I'm confused: McMaster, Trump's national security adviser, just said the label is "not helpful" because terrorists are "un-Islamic." Is OP disagreeing with McMaster too?
     
    #4 sirbaihu, Feb 25, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  5. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,147
    Likes Received:
    17,075
    Obama did not want to assist ISIS in their recruiting efforts.

    Trump does ... bigly ... and is proud of that accomplishment.

    Word on the street is that Trump officials are not allowed to say "radical Christian extremists". Trump wants to protect Steve Bannon's feelings.
     
    #5 No Worries, Feb 25, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  6. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    15,096
    Likes Received:
    6,264
    Much of Islam is radical compared to the average person of the world. I can see why they would be offended for being called terrorists. And of course Obama had no problem making whites feel they were privileged and should be responsible for the wrong doing of any black crimes.
     
    #6 Space Ghost, Feb 25, 2017
  7. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,004
    Likes Received:
    15,466
    I don't see any logical flaw in the argument. It is pragmatic. We need to get the people in the region, who don't see Islam as evil or intrinsically violent/hateful, to work with us in the fight against ISIS. Advertising it as a fight against Islamic extremism runs counter to that strategy. When half our politicians want to frame this as US vs Islam (Trump: "Islam hates us."), how does that help convince millions of devout Muslims to ally with us against ISIS. This is extremely insular thinking.

    And this isn't simply a matter of "calling a spade a spade." What it means to be Islamic is debatable.The fact is many of our allies consider ISIS to be highly un-Islamic. A good portion of Muslims feel this way. You, a non-Muslim, may disagree, but the opinion of our allies in the region is far more important than your opinion (or my opinion). So why antagonize them by using a term that explicitly labels ISIS fighters as "Islamic"?

    I would go so far as to say that we shouldn't even call them ISIL/ISIS. That's essentially what they call themselves, so why legitimize it? I prefer "Daesh". "********ers, Inc." would also be acceptable.
     
    #7 durvasa, Feb 25, 2017
    joshuaao, dmoneybangbang and London'sBurning like this.
  8. Amiga

    Amiga 10 years ago...
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,916
    Likes Received:
    18,671
    I'm not. I listen to people that spend considerable amount of time working in this field and have much more experience over those that isn't or look to play politic.

    As ATW pointed out, politically, its an easy attack point. Politic however shouldn't be above security.
     
    #8 Amiga, Feb 25, 2017
  9. Exiled

    Exiled Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    ISIS is like Nazi Germany,everyone else should fight against it, Saudi had formed a coalition of 35 Muslim countries to fight them,Obama didn't like the idea
     
    #9 Exiled, Feb 25, 2017
  10. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,004
    Likes Received:
    15,466
    Don't want to derail the thread, but I'm really curious if there's a particular speech or quote from Obama that you found offensive and made you feel like he was blaming white people for crimes committed by black people. Did he adopt terminology that places blame on white people for crime in America? I think you're trying to show there's some hypocrisy going on here; just trying to understand it.
     
    #10 durvasa, Feb 25, 2017
  11. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,461
    Likes Received:
    17,151
    There is truth to the fact that moderate Muslims are the world's greatest resource in combatting Islamic extremism.

    However, I don't think that refusing to acknowledge the role Islam plays in this is doing anyone any favors.
     
    #11 DonnyMost, Feb 25, 2017
    Nook and AroundTheWorld like this.
  12. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,004
    Likes Received:
    15,466
    So is the idea that if we call these terrorists "Islamic", people in that region will eventually start thinking "Hmmm, maybe we should reconsider how we teach Islamic scripture or how we interpret these verses."

    That would be nice, but I don't think it makes any positive difference in that regard. If anything, it encourages people in the region to buy into idea that there's a war going on between the West and Islam. We're better off employing more subtle means of encouraging people in the region to be adopt a more peaceful, moderate version of Islam.
     
    #12 durvasa, Feb 25, 2017
  13. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    30,147
    Likes Received:
    17,075
    Trump does not do subtle. Its one of his charms.
     
    #13 No Worries, Feb 25, 2017
  14. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,026
    Likes Received:
    7,792
    The way Islam treat women is radical. The way they treat all minorities is radical. The way they treat LGBTs is radical. Actually using radical isn't strong enough imho, it's savage and backwards. Fack their savage and backward religions, we'll call them whatever we want until they progress like the rest of the wolrd.

    Also where the libs at? Still waiting for libs to march against islam like they do trump. Where is the energy, the anger, the organization? Grab p*****s joke calls for anarchy, mutilate innocent children just look away, freaking hypocrites.
     
    #14 ipaman, Feb 25, 2017
  15. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    54,514
    Likes Received:
    54,445
    Laughable you favor discriminatory immigration laws against Muslims in the same breath that you complain that "libs" don't complain that Islam discriminates. And further laughable, you complain about Islam discriminating against LGBT while supporting bathroom laws designed to discriminate against LGBT.

    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5)
     
    #15 NewRoxFan, Feb 25, 2017
  16. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Let me get this straight, if "radical Islamic" extremism is the appropriate label but you believe that it "vilifies" a whole religion, haven't you exposed a greater problem?

    In my opinion, these groups are better classified as militant takfiri jihadists, but since 99% of the American public would have no idea what that means, despite Salafi Arabia's insistent that ISIS and Al-Qaed are "takfiri" ideologies, it's probably better to use the catchall "radical Islamic" extremism.

     
    #16 Cohete Rojo, Feb 25, 2017
  17. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost be kind. be brave.
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,461
    Likes Received:
    17,151
    It's long-game vs. short-game attitude.

    Refusing to acknowledge the source of the behavior (beliefs precede actions) harms the deceleration effort.
     
    #17 DonnyMost, Feb 25, 2017
  18. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
    We live in a time where there's actually debate about taking away a woman's right to choose while taking away government assistance for those poor and in need of assistance raising their child. It's counterintuitive to the whole Pro-Life movement IMO. While I largely disagree with the extremist feminist movement, I am supportive of equal rights as long as it remains about equal rights. Nowadays you get called a SJW for that.

    Christians still practice circumcision on children while its medical benefits are ambiguous, and some Christian denominations absolutely do try and control how a woman is supposed to live her life. Likewise, you have Christian denominations that are not accepting of minorities or LGBT. All you said can be applied to Christianity but you'll just say they're outliers.

    I've no doubt that Islam has its myriad of issues when it comes to equal rights for all, but to cast stones while living in a country that's largely Christian would be like living in a glass house. Make no mistake, the U.S. is a far better example of providing equal rights for all far better than even some of the most developed nations (largely because of the separation of church and state otherwise we'd have ass backward Christian inspired laws like liquor laws in Texas), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to set a clearer and better standard of equal rights than we have now either.
     
    #18 London'sBurning, Feb 25, 2017
  19. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,026
    Likes Received:
    7,792
    shitpost reply again. 1) I don't support bathroom laws because we don't need them and 2) I support THE LAW when it comes to immigration which is it must be legal. Get your head out of your ass and quit attacking me with fake posts. Address the topic if you're capable. Libs are hypocrites when it comes to Islam because fear of being labeled a racists is much greater than caring about Women, Minorities, LGBTs, etc..., lives. HYPOCRITES!!!

    Islam is backawards, savage, intolerant, narrow-minded, small-minded, parochial, primitive, antediluvian, out of touch, out of date, and dare I say it.... RADICAL!!! Sad part is, I 'aint even talking about the terrorists...
     
    #19 ipaman, Feb 25, 2017
  20. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,026
    Likes Received:
    7,792
    You're damn right I cast stones and fack the Christians too. I cant stand them either. But they are contained at the moment so attention and resources must look elsewhere for now. They'll get theirs too trust me. That said, you're missing a huge point. The left does and will stand against Christianity. There are too many examples to name but how about the NBA vs North Carolina and Texas, ditto NCAA, HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!, etc... Again the main point, why does the left stand against Christians? Because they're "white" and you won't get labeled if you do.
     
    #20 ipaman, Feb 25, 2017
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 4

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now