A picture is worth a thousand words
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Obama has gotten so bad about this that he now channels
Wayne LaPierre. Yesterday Obama told his assembled and hand-picked audience that: "No religion is responsible for violence and terrorism--people are responsible for violence and terrorism." Don't blame the gun, blame the person.
The goat theory might be at play here. Yesterday, goat posited the notion that the Obama administration knows full well that ISIS is islamic but they lie about it. In other words they are Gruberizing the issue for reasons none other than shaping public opinion about Islam just as they wanted to shape public opinion about health care. Goat might have a point. Maybe a better course of action would be to simply be honest and quit trying to manipulate how people think and behave through dishonesty.
I think it is even money about whether goat is correct or that Obama naively really believes what he says.
Wayne LaPierre. Yesterday Obama told his assembled and hand-picked audience that: "No religion is responsible for violence and terrorism--people are responsible for violence and terrorism." Don't blame the gun, blame the person.
The goat theory might be at play here. Yesterday, goat posited the notion that the Obama administration knows full well that ISIS is islamic but they lie about it. In other words they are Gruberizing the issue for reasons none other than shaping public opinion about Islam just as they wanted to shape public opinion about health care. Goat might have a point. Maybe a better course of action would be to simply be honest and quit trying to manipulate how people think and behave through dishonesty.
I think it is even money about whether goat is correct or that Obama naively really believes what he says.
What Obama doesn't want to see...
...is for the Muslim world to think America is at war against Islam.
Also like a good many experts on the subject, I think Obama believes a more effective voice when it comes to labeling the radical Muslims should come within the Muslims themselves.
This leaves Obama talking about such things as terrorists who have adopted a phony version of Islam in order to gain recruits. This also leaves Obama's political antagonists saying that Obama doesn't understand the religious component which exists within radical Islamic terrorism.
Because I don't think Obama is either dumb or not listening to advisers who are helping him develop propaganda against the radicals I would like to believe Obama's choice of words in describing the enemy has both merit and is part of a well planned strategy.
...is for the Muslim world to think America is at war against Islam.
Also like a good many experts on the subject, I think Obama believes a more effective voice when it comes to labeling the radical Muslims should come within the Muslims themselves.
This leaves Obama talking about such things as terrorists who have adopted a phony version of Islam in order to gain recruits. This also leaves Obama's political antagonists saying that Obama doesn't understand the religious component which exists within radical Islamic terrorism.
Because I don't think Obama is either dumb or not listening to advisers who are helping him develop propaganda against the radicals I would like to believe Obama's choice of words in describing the enemy has both merit and is part of a well planned strategy.
Re: What Obama doesn't want to see...
Kill'em with kindness, support, jobs and education and they will go away. We have had thousands of years of religious wars for many reasons. I cannot fathom that anyone thinks that his administrations policies will work.
Kill'em with kindness, support, jobs and education and they will go away. We have had thousands of years of religious wars for many reasons. I cannot fathom that anyone thinks that his administrations policies will work.
So where's this more effective voice?
I'd love nothing more than to see non-jihadist Islam finally, at long last, be as vocally critical of jihadist Islam as they are of, say, Israel. I was very heartened to see King Abdullah show some signs of life recently after the Jordanian pilot was murdered. Hopefully it won't stop with that.
But, alas, it never really seems to materialize into much. I don't know if it's out of fear or political pragmatism (it should never be forgotten that high percentages of Muslim populations hew to fundamentalist strains of theology). But, whatever the reason, this "more effective voice" (which I totally agree would be more effective) just never seems to gain much volume.
America is not at war with Islam. But certain elements within Islam -- and, yes, they are within it -- are at war with America. And, while it may seem pragmatic to avoid saying this, it actually only serves to muddy the water.
As Rock's Atlantic piece the other day pointed out, our pretending that it's not a religious movement (let alone likening ISIS to a "JV team") has already led to our underestimating it.
We should stop pretending.
I'd love nothing more than to see non-jihadist Islam finally, at long last, be as vocally critical of jihadist Islam as they are of, say, Israel. I was very heartened to see King Abdullah show some signs of life recently after the Jordanian pilot was murdered. Hopefully it won't stop with that.
But, alas, it never really seems to materialize into much. I don't know if it's out of fear or political pragmatism (it should never be forgotten that high percentages of Muslim populations hew to fundamentalist strains of theology). But, whatever the reason, this "more effective voice" (which I totally agree would be more effective) just never seems to gain much volume.
America is not at war with Islam. But certain elements within Islam -- and, yes, they are within it -- are at war with America. And, while it may seem pragmatic to avoid saying this, it actually only serves to muddy the water.
As Rock's Atlantic piece the other day pointed out, our pretending that it's not a religious movement (let alone likening ISIS to a "JV team") has already led to our underestimating it.
We should stop pretending.
crazed, Great question
This link attempts to answer why the voice within Islam against the radical Muslims isn't being heard. In part it states,
That question comes up every time terrorists purporting to be deeply religious Muslims carry out armed attacks that kill innocent people. Where, commentators ask, are the moderate Muslim leaders and why aren't they decrying the horrors perpetuated by fellow Muslims?
In fact, mainstream Muslims are speaking out, clearly and consistently. Leaders around the world, many of whom I know personally through my work at the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, have issued strong and unambiguous statements virtually every time a violent attack has occurred, condemning such acts as immoral and counter to the fundamental precepts of Islam.
Those responses should have been part of the story. But too often, Islam is portrayed negatively, and as a monolithic entity. People don't realize that there is a diversity of opinion within Islam and that most Muslims condemn extremism and violence.
This link attempts to answer why the voice within Islam against the radical Muslims isn't being heard. In part it states,
That question comes up every time terrorists purporting to be deeply religious Muslims carry out armed attacks that kill innocent people. Where, commentators ask, are the moderate Muslim leaders and why aren't they decrying the horrors perpetuated by fellow Muslims?
In fact, mainstream Muslims are speaking out, clearly and consistently. Leaders around the world, many of whom I know personally through my work at the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, have issued strong and unambiguous statements virtually every time a violent attack has occurred, condemning such acts as immoral and counter to the fundamental precepts of Islam.
Those responses should have been part of the story. But too often, Islam is portrayed negatively, and as a monolithic entity. People don't realize that there is a diversity of opinion within Islam and that most Muslims condemn extremism and violence.
I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell
Last nite and he had a woman on who used to work with Daniel Pearl. Her position was that until Obama understands the nature of the beast, there will be no US solution. OD and Howard Dean (along with the other Muslim guest) disagreed with her position. O'Donnell then played a clip where Bill O'Reilly said there are millions of armed radical Muslims and they scoffed at that notion as if it weren't in any way possible and the number was O'Reilly's imagination gone loco (sidebar: I've scanned this show a few times lately and in almost every episode OD mentions O'Reilly or plays a clip). After the 10 minute ridicule of O'Reilly all agreed Obama's got no plan on what to do and it's foreign policy on the fly.
Last nite and he had a woman on who used to work with Daniel Pearl. Her position was that until Obama understands the nature of the beast, there will be no US solution. OD and Howard Dean (along with the other Muslim guest) disagreed with her position. O'Donnell then played a clip where Bill O'Reilly said there are millions of armed radical Muslims and they scoffed at that notion as if it weren't in any way possible and the number was O'Reilly's imagination gone loco (sidebar: I've scanned this show a few times lately and in almost every episode OD mentions O'Reilly or plays a clip). After the 10 minute ridicule of O'Reilly all agreed Obama's got no plan on what to do and it's foreign policy on the fly.
Re: I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell
Obama's policies embolden the enemy and they interpret as a hand of friendship from a fool. This administrations laissez faire attitudes only encourage more violence and terror! This is out of hand and the shame is there is absolutely nothing America can do about it with this President in power.
Obama's policies embolden the enemy and they interpret as a hand of friendship from a fool. This administrations laissez faire attitudes only encourage more violence and terror! This is out of hand and the shame is there is absolutely nothing America can do about it with this President in power.
Why do you suppose it is...
....that these condemnations are, as Rabbi Schneier rightly points out, are "barely registering in the public consciousness"?
He chalks it up to insufficient coverage of statements of condemnation in Western press. Maybe. But couldn't it also be that people are slightly incredulous at the condemnations?
Yassir Arafat famously made a very public condemnation of the 9/11 attacks -- even going so far as to have a photo op of him donating blood. OK, fine. That's certainly better than dancing in the street. But I think you could forgive anybody who paid much attention to Arafat from seeing these as crocodile tears -- given the totality of the man's record, both in word and deed.
Another example this equivocation is Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who sought to build an Islamic Center near ground zero. On one hand, he condemned the 9/11 attacks. But, when asked if he agree with the State Department's classification of Hamas as a terrorist organization, he demurred -- saying that "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."
Well, no, it really isn't.
Rabbi Schneier, to his credit, at least rightly points out in his closing paragraph that "Islamist extremism is a genuine threat to world peace." The mere fact that he correctly identified the movement as Islamist at least puts him a leg up over the Commander-in-Chief.
But perhaps it's not just that these condemnations he speaks of are underreported. Perhaps they go in one collective ear and out the other...because (a) other statements which would seem to indicate sympathy for certain other jihadist elements, and (b) that actions speak louder than words.
....that these condemnations are, as Rabbi Schneier rightly points out, are "barely registering in the public consciousness"?
He chalks it up to insufficient coverage of statements of condemnation in Western press. Maybe. But couldn't it also be that people are slightly incredulous at the condemnations?
Yassir Arafat famously made a very public condemnation of the 9/11 attacks -- even going so far as to have a photo op of him donating blood. OK, fine. That's certainly better than dancing in the street. But I think you could forgive anybody who paid much attention to Arafat from seeing these as crocodile tears -- given the totality of the man's record, both in word and deed.
Another example this equivocation is Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam who sought to build an Islamic Center near ground zero. On one hand, he condemned the 9/11 attacks. But, when asked if he agree with the State Department's classification of Hamas as a terrorist organization, he demurred -- saying that "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."
Well, no, it really isn't.
Rabbi Schneier, to his credit, at least rightly points out in his closing paragraph that "Islamist extremism is a genuine threat to world peace." The mere fact that he correctly identified the movement as Islamist at least puts him a leg up over the Commander-in-Chief.
But perhaps it's not just that these condemnations he speaks of are underreported. Perhaps they go in one collective ear and out the other...because (a) other statements which would seem to indicate sympathy for certain other jihadist elements, and (b) that actions speak louder than words.
I am Ok with cautious words not to futher inflame but,
The religion must clean this up. It is becoming critical for several counties to step up in that part of the world or the west will be forced into a conflict we are trying hard to avoid. The air power buys time but the coalition that needs to act is not really a coalition at all. Turkey must get in the game in a big way or I advocate supporting the Kurds as a separate country and arm them to the teeth. If Turkey then gets up in arms kick them out of NATO.
This post was edited on 2/19 12:38 PM by Rockport Zebra
The religion must clean this up. It is becoming critical for several counties to step up in that part of the world or the west will be forced into a conflict we are trying hard to avoid. The air power buys time but the coalition that needs to act is not really a coalition at all. Turkey must get in the game in a big way or I advocate supporting the Kurds as a separate country and arm them to the teeth. If Turkey then gets up in arms kick them out of NATO.
This post was edited on 2/19 12:38 PM by Rockport Zebra
you mean leadership?
If I understand your position correctly, you think now is a good time for the Obamessiah to organize a summit with European Leaders And Middle East allies and organize a plan to combat ISIS and stop this festering ideology and bring everyone into the civilized world community. I completely agree, wecan drop bombs forever and we can let Jordan and Egypt chime in but without an organized multinational effort, there is no end game.
If I understand your position correctly, you think now is a good time for the Obamessiah to organize a summit with European Leaders And Middle East allies and organize a plan to combat ISIS and stop this festering ideology and bring everyone into the civilized world community. I completely agree, wecan drop bombs forever and we can let Jordan and Egypt chime in but without an organized multinational effort, there is no end game.
I think Obama would agree with this post
He probably regrets making the "JV" comment and has largely stood and watched as they have formed a vicious organized Army and funded it by robbing the Mosul central bank and extorting businesses in the area to become a sustainable power. I think we're gonna keep bombing from drones which has been his foreign policy.
He probably regrets making the "JV" comment and has largely stood and watched as they have formed a vicious organized Army and funded it by robbing the Mosul central bank and extorting businesses in the area to become a sustainable power. I think we're gonna keep bombing from drones which has been his foreign policy.
