The democrats intentionally held this on a Saturday night because they don't want anybody watching it. They don't want to see their pre-selected candidate Hillary get tarnished further. Their potential problem with this approach is voter indifference -- ie voters not showing up at the polls. Advantage GOP if that happens
Why would that piss them off? Shouldn't the thing that pisses off peaceful Muslims EVERYWHERE be these assholes who have hijacked their religion doing horrible things in the name of their religion? I don't buy your bull****. You see it's one thing to be a guy on the message board railing for "political correctness", but it's a different thing when the adults are putting together a plan to actually defeat these insane fu cks. BTW...who the hell brought up Trump? I wouldn't vote for that d-bag any more than I would the liar Hillary.
Because "war on radical islam" is a longwinded thing to say and will, over time, be simplified to "war on Islam", which makes 2 billion people your enemy. By avoid the term entirely and sticking with ISIS or terrorists or jihadists, you avoid that possibility - it's not like saying "war on radical Islam" helps win the war in any way. Again, it's not just Obama or Clinton that avoid this characterization. Bush did as well, and Europe leaders are doing so now. There's a very good reason for this. Here is a good article on what ISIS wants - I disagree with the conclusons, but you'll recognize a lot of local posters in the part about what ISIS wants. It's a brilliant strategy and plays into western political fault lines and basic human emotion. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e0ca84-87d1-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html The Islamic State’s trap for Europe Last week, President Obama said that the Islamic State is “ contained ” in Iraq and Syria, but the group’s attacks in Paris soon afterward showed that it poses a greater threat to the West than ever. The Islamic State is executing a global strategy to defend its territory in Iraq and Syria, foster affiliates in other Muslim-majority areas, and encourage and direct terrorist attacks in the wider world. It has exported its brutality and military methods to groups in Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Now it is using tactical skills acquired on Middle Eastern battlefields to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash that will generate even more recruits within Western societies. The United States and its allies must respond quickly to this threat. The Islamic State’s strategy is to polarize Western society — to “destroy the grayzone,” as it says in its publications. The group hopes frequent, devastating attacks in its name will provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities throughout the continent. The atrocities in Paris are only the most recent instances of this accelerating campaign. Since January, European citizens fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have provided online and material support to lethal operations in Paris, Copenhagen and near Lyon, France, as well as attempted attacks in London, Barcelona and near Brussels. Islamic State fighters are likely responsible for destroying the Russian airliner over the Sinai. These attacks are not random, nor are they aimed primarily at affecting Western policy in the Middle East. They are, rather, part of a militarily capable organization’s campaign to mobilize extremist actors already in Europe and to recruit new ones. The strategy is explicit. The Islamic State explained after the January attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine that such attacks “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselves. . . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize . . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.” The group calculates that a small number of attackers can profoundly shift the way that European society views its 44 million Muslim members and, as a result, the way European Muslims view themselves. Through this provocation, it seeks to set conditions for an apocalyptic war with the West. Unfortunately, elements of European society are reacting as the Islamic State desires. Far-right parties have gained strength in many European countries. France’s National Front is expected to dominate local elections in northern France this winter; on Saturday, Marine Le Pen, its leader, declared “those who maintain links with Islamism” to be “France’s enemies.” The Danish People’s Party gained 21 percent of the vote in national elections in June on a nationalist, anti-Islamic platform. The anti-foreigner Sweden Democrats is steadily growing in popularity. The Paris attacks will surely prompt an anti-Muslim backlash, as demonstrated by protesters who brought a banner saying “Expel the Islamists” to a vigil in Lille, France. The Islamic State does not have to invent tales of Western hatred: It can simply publish photos of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who recently proclaimed, “The less Islam, the better.” Arsonists conducted scores of attacks on asylum seekers and shelters in Germany this year, while extremists have targeted Muslim citizens in France. The continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa creates a perfect environment for the Islamic State’s campaign. ...
How did people feel about Hillary invoking 9/11 for her justification on why she is backed by wall street? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/27LfI2AX5_U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thank you for the reasoned response. While I agree that ISIS is trying to use this strategy to divide and conquer...and recognize the logic in trying to avoid the connection between Islam and ISIS, I disagree that refusing to recognize their use of Islam is smart. IMHO, the end of ISIS begins when moderate Muslims take back their religion and make ISIS the pariah within their religion/culture they currently seem to be insulated from. I don't see any other way to eliminate it once and for all. How do we get that moderate part of Islam to begin this process in earnest? The strategy that Obama (and Bush) have used to try and disassociate Islam from Islamic Terrorism is not working. The mere fact that ISIS exists and is the strongest we have seen Radical Islam proves this to be true. We have been doing this for decades now with the problem seemingly only getting worse. I contend that what is needed is subtle pressure on those moderate forces to get out in front of this issue and forcefully denounce ISIS and terrorism as the most destructive and threatening force AGAINST Islam in its history. They must believe it and start making their own people believe it for it to have the effect needed to take down ISIS. The subtle pressure starts by calling it what it is: Radical Islam. As it is now, peaceful/Moderates Muslim leaders can sit back and do little...safe and secure in the knowledge that Radical Islam has nothing to do with them and moreover ISN'T a threat to them or their beliefs. This must change. Don't get me wrong. I don't blame Islam or Muslims for ISIS. Their people and religion are the prime victim of Radical Islam. But I contend their religion/culture turning HARD against Radical Islam is the only way to really destroy it once and for all.
