Democrats & Liberals Archives

Pick Your Words And Pick Your Battles

Why not call it Islamic Extremism, or talk about Radical Islam? Why does Obama choose his words so carefully on it? Republicans and Conservatives complain about it, thinking he’s not confronting these people with robust enough terms. Yes, like they’ll run scared if we use the right jargon. No, it’s not about them. It’s about the tens of millions of Muslims in the region.

Here's the way I figure it: In Islam, you are supposed to defend the faith, and you are not supposed to make war against your fellow Muslims. Of course, like many groups of people in the world, they will come to blows from time to time, so they'll look for a way to rationalize it. So, one way to do it is to accuse them of being bad Muslims, or rejecting Islam. That's ISIS' likely way of justifying it's violence, which almos exclusively falls on Islam.

Good news is, like with stunts like burning the captured pilot, the argument that's good for the goose is good for the gander. They look at what ISIS did, according to reports I've heard, as a kind of blasphemy. Only God is supposed to be able to punish with fire, and these guys just took it on themselves to do that, a move that has united the region against them.

Put in other terms, by failing to observe the limits of their own society, ISIS has undermined it's own base in a way that it's predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, did with its relentless attacks on civilians.

Making this out to be West vs. Islam, Christianity vs. Islam is counterproductive. The Conservative commentators want to act like Muslims don't reject this, when they often do. They want their clash of civilizations. Thing is, though, this is actually about something else: civilization vs. barbarism. As a largely Christian nation, it's hard to build common ground with Muslim Countries we need on our side on the grounds that our faiths are entirely compatible. They're not. They're not too distant, being cousins of the Judaeo-Christian religious tradition, something that was pointed out many times in the age where we were more concerned about confronting the power of Soviet Russia than picking fights with the Muslim world.

But if there's one thing we do agree on, that we do both want for the most part, it's the benefits of civilization. We want peace. We want working governments with just leaders who do well by their people. It's this vicious little minority that wants war with us. For everybody else, it ruins their day.

Using Islam and Muslim as the terms for these bastards in Syria in Iraq both gives them too much credit (for many are more thugs than real students of the religion they claim), and unfortunately triggers a self-protective instinct. They don't trust us to define what's too radical, too extreme in terms of their own religion, anymore than most of us would trust them to do the same with ours.

You get them thinking of the fight being aimed against them. It might not lead them to take up ISIS or al-Qaeda's cause, but it does give them pause when it comes to cooperating with us.

But if we're talking violent extremism, if we're just talking terrorism, if we pose this in non-religious terms, then our argument to them is stronger for it.

My message to them would be simple: We have been drawn into this because these people have committed violence against us, and will be drawn into it time and again when they deliver such threats, when they shed blood. Their barbarism, their violence towards the citizens of western countries is what draws western militaries into the region. Otherwise, we'd be far less eager to stick our feet in that particular stream.

More to the point, what they do defames Islam, doesn't defend it. It lets those who do harbor anti-Islamic sentiments point to them, and say to them, "this is what comes of showing tolerance to Islam." It is a stumbling block to anybody who would want to spread the faith legitimately in the west.

My sentiments here are this: I take my nation's first Amendment very seriously. I don't think of it as some guideline or suggestion. You are free to worship Allah, worship Vishnu Brahman and Shiva, worship Zeus, Odin, The Horned God, Satan, or nobody at all. You can be Shinto or adopt Native American beliefs instead. Some fear good faith permissiveness of this kind, claiming it's going to wreck the country.

Me, I think it wrecks the country when we let religion and politics mix and corrupt each other. The prohibitions of laws against religion, and against the raising of one religion to the established church are a safeguard for the individual's right to follow their own conscience in what they personally do.

It should not be this government's job to fight any kind of Islam. What we're fighting isn't a religion, it's at it's base a political group that employs violence and intimidation in it's homeland and abroad in an effort to force its views and its agenda on everybody else. Treat it that way, and it loses its aura as any kind of spiritual movement, and gets reduced to what it really is, a gang of thugs.

I don't believe in dignifying thugs and criminals like them with some sort of superhuman reputation. I believe it's for the best if we treat them in secular terms that the Muslims of the world can agree with guilt-free. Let's go up to the Muslim world and say, "Hey, Let's clean that place out of these scumbags who are killing your people and ours."

Stop giving them what they want: What they want is a war between Islam and the West. What they should get instead is a war between the people who have the temerity to call themselves the Islamic State, and all the rest of the world.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2015 11:52 AM
Comments
Comment #388908

It appears that the Obama administration has a great plan for fighting terrorism.

“What the West really needs to take on the Islamic State is … a jobs program.

That’s what a top State Department spokeswoman suggested when asked in a TV interview Monday night about what the U.S.-led coalition is doing to stop the slaughter of civilians by Islamic State militants across the region.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2015 2:11 PM
Comment #388917

It appears you get your news from FOXNews, which is sort of like shopping for your food out of the dumpster.

If you had seen more of the interview, you’d know she wasn’t suggesting working on jobs and the economy as the basic plan, but as long term parts of this. She talked about killing the leaders and killing the foot soldiers, and getting the other countries together to kill them with us.

But FOXNews failed to talk about that to you. Instead, they played you. They played on your bias. Oh, look, liberals and jobs programs, look at how stupid and naive they are.

Remember the Marshall Program? By rebuilding Europe’s economy, we stabilized the situation there. Have we had much trouble from Western Europe since? No. They’re our allies now.

You want to play this like a damn video game, as if killing enough brown people will win you the level. Doesn’t work that way. Armed forces don’t just settle for their losses, but will turn around and try to replenish those forces. If they go looking for those people, those young soldiers with nothing to lose, impressionable, not yet disillusioned by the passage of history, and they don’t find them? They can’t replenish their losses.

You don’t just attack an enemy’s forces. You attack supplies, you attack their ability to recruit. You attack their ability to perceive the battlefield, their ability to communicate between their units.

Von Clausewitz talked about destroying forces in more than just the dimension of raw manpower, he talked about destroying them in terms of all the different supporting elements. ISIS recruits from a pool of available young men. Deprive them of that, prevent them from replenishing their forces, and you weaken their ability to fight and hold territory. Succeed well enough at it, and ISIS is defeated.

So, sneer if you want, while the adults take on ISIS in more than just the fashion that’s obvious to little children.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2015 2:49 PM
Comment #388923

I just love reading Daugherty’s rants about what we don’t know but he does. He really isn’t a student of history, but rather, more like the old “Fractured Fairytales” of TV fame.

I give him a direct quote and he accuses me of shopping for my news out of the dumpster. I don’t really expect much from Daugherty as his political acumen is directly proportional to what emanates from obama’s butt. One thing is certain, he can never be accused of thinking for himself.

During his hiatus from WB I wrongly believed he was sharpening his debating skills. Wrong! Same old liberal mush and hyperbole.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2015 3:22 PM
Comment #388925

More…

Daugherty wrote; “She talked about killing the leaders and killing the foot soldiers, and getting the other countries together to kill them with us.”

Well isn’t that silly. If they are all dead…they don’t need jobs. LOL

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2015 3:26 PM
Comment #388926

As said by the Great General and war veteran Daughtry. Grow up Stephen. A war is won by killing so many of the enemy that it isn’t worth it for them to keep fighting.

Posted by: tdobson at February 17, 2015 3:33 PM
Comment #388946

I don’t have a job. If Obama don’t give me one, I’m going to join the KKK. Makes about as much sense as what her and Stephen are saying.

Posted by: tdobson at February 17, 2015 6:53 PM
Comment #388951

A federal judge in Texas stayed implementation of obama’s immigration plans to no longer deport certain illegals. Isn’t that interesting.

Obama told us a while ago that the constitution didn’t allow him to change our immigration legislation. Then he decided he could. What happened?

1. Obama spent his spare time studying the Constitution rather than playing golf and decided he was wrong.

2. Obama heard from the far left that he could safely ignore the Constitution and they would cover his ass.

3. Party leaders insisted he act against his Constitutional oath and change deportation laws so they would have more votes in 2016 from illegals.

4. Obama is being blackmailed by Juan Valdez who is tired of hauling white man’s coffee on his ass.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #389019

Royal Flush-
You believing that I was sharpening my debate skills? Riiiiight. I think you’re just saying that for the reason you say most things: just to say it.

Look, you can characterize my knowledge of history as nastily as you want, but it won’t move our relative levels of knowledge one bit in either direction.

You’re pushing attrition because it lets you just stupidly throw troops and firepower at the problem. You don’t think we did plenty of that? And STILL ISIS was able to undermine us. Why?

Because our result didn’t depend on the number of forces we had left, versus them. It depended on the inclinations of the Iraqis after we were gone. Would staying have made the Sunnis who ran or defected in the face of ISIS’ attack act any differently when we finally pulled out… or was your idea to make Iraq a permanent burden on American forces, only without the benefit of a war essentially finished or never carried out. (Cold War and Korean War come to mind.)

The question you never answered is what these people do when we go home. For you, simply not losing was good enough. Well, that’s fine if you’re the Iraqi Insurgents, because they can afford to wait us out. They’re the guerilla warriors. It doesn’t take tens of billions of dollars a year for them to operate there, it’s their home territory. They don’t have to win the big set-piece battles, they just have to make sure that staying is as costly as possible. Because they blend into the population, and we depend on their goodwill to stay there, there’s a limit to how hard we can attack them to root them out.

Wars aren’t won on numbers alone. If the Iraqi Army Soldiers we trained had wanted to, they could have easily wiped out the ISIS soldiers who attacked them. But they lacked either the nerve or the loyalty to Iraq as a country that would allow them to take advantage of their numbers.

You sneer at jobs as a key, but what you need to understand is that Arab/Muslim men are expected to be breadwinners, expected to find a nice girl, raise a family. Folks like ISIS invariably recruit from the ranks of the unemployed, the folks for whom these prospects are dim.

Put another way, ISIS, and al-Qaeda before it, are jobs programs from a certain perspective. They give these otherwise destitute young men jobs, a certain prestige, which they can turn around and use (that’s the plan at least) to build a life. Or at least die gloriously than poor and ashamed in the gutter.

What we’re talking about here is competing for ISIS’ recruiting pool, playing a zero-sum game that ISIS loses, the more we succeed.

As for that decision?

We’ll see how long it stands. For people who hate judicial activism, you seem to do a lot of it. But even if you do win, what then? You still have no immigration reform package.

You guys talk about the Constitution a lot, but that just reads to me as arrogance about your own interpretation. Framers made the Supreme Court because laws would never be seen from one point of view along, and the Constitution is no exception. We don’t actually subscribe to the hatred of it that you think we do. That’s just your Pravda like propaganda standing in for decent observation.

No, truth is, we have a disagreement which you’ve arrogantly turned into an assumption on your part that you have the one true interpretation of what the Constitution does and does not allow.

I don’t think you folks are even thinking about what the implications are of winning this particular argument, even. If you do, there may come a point sometime in the future where you’re struck by the consequences of having pushed matters this far. But then, that’s par for the course with the GOP. Shoot first, ask what you hit later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 18, 2015 9:05 AM
Comment #389025

We did not pick this battle and, regardless of who might be offended, it should be called what it is: islamic extremism.

The left lives in a fantasy world of their own making. They use their politics to pick sides. America is the most successful, so everybody else are just misunderstood victims.
They justify their actions by what they have read in some book. From crime to terrorism, the fault lies with unemployment and the answer is for everybody to be members of some workers labor party or something.
Well, reading a survivalist book doesn’t mean you would survive more than a day in the middle of nowhere, and reading about how great Islam is doesn’t mean you know jack about what makes them tick.
It has nothing to do with the lack of jobs.

It’s not surprising to see that those calling for all this “Muslim understanding,” are the same ones who go around shouting right-wing extremists, Christian terrorists, homophobes, racists and Tea Party radicals.

Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2015 10:21 AM
Comment #389048

Daugherty: “We’ll see how long it stands. For people who hate judicial activism, you seem to do a lot of it.”

Judicial Activism is not a temporary injunction. Please sharpen your knowledge.

Daugherty: “You sneer at jobs as a key, but what you need to understand is that Arab/Muslim men are expected to be breadwinners, expected to find a nice girl, raise a family.”

Yes, I do “sneer” at any suggestion by our State Department that American taxpayers should provide money for jobs for terrorists.

Do I need remind my liberal friend of the millions of Americans seeking jobs to be breadwinners, to find a nice girl, and to raise a family?

There is a liberal here on WB who some time ago suggested we open our borders to everyone. I will never mention his name because of his ludicrous ideas. Perhaps Daugherty would agree and we could just open our borders to these terrorists and give them a government job.

Who is ISIS killing? Christians and Jews because of religious hatred. Police and military because of their threat to them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 18, 2015 2:10 PM
Comment #389081

‘It appears you get your news from FOXNews, which is sort of like shopping for your food out of the dumpster.’

What’s this with stickin’ to the messenger in stead of the message.

Oops SD is a liberal, Progressive, soughpaw, etc Can’t go that route. And I am not a bit sorry

Posted by: tom humes at February 18, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #389095

The reason Obama cannot say the word “Islamic Extremism” or “Islamic Terrorism”:

Obama’s legacy is crumbling all around him. Obamacare is falling apart, amnesty is disintegrating in the courts; so what’s left? A nuclear deal with Iran… Problem for Obama; if he calls a spade a spade (regarding Islamic terrorism), he will be attacking Iran, since it is Iran who is the big brother to all these extremist groups. To attack Islamic terrorist, is to attack Iran; thus killing the only thing left for Obama’s legacy. So, Obama puts his failed legacy above the safety of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 18, 2015 8:24 PM
Comment #389096

From the Washington Post:

Democrats are bracing for another Obamacare backlash
Judge’s immigration ruling adds to Obama’s list of potential legal pitfalls

Poor Obama, everyone is against him…people hate him, the most popular news channel in the country (Fox) is spreading lies about him, the Republican led Congress is against him…boo-hoo, nobody understands how intelligent he is…nobody understands what a savior he is…

Immigration, Obamacare, EPA…all going to the courts. Don’t these idiot judges understand that Obama is a “Constitutional scholar”…don’t they understand he was a “law professor”? Who do these judges think they are? Obama said 17 times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to grant blanket amnesty, before he said, “This is not the first time where a lower-court judge has blocked something or attempted to block something that ultimately is going to be lawful,” he added, “and I’m confident that it is well within my authority” to execute this policy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-in-texas-deals-legal-blow-to-obamas-immigration-action/2015/02/17/a93cb456-b6b8-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html?hpid=z1

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 18, 2015 9:01 PM
Comment #389155

kctim-
Look, there are about a billion Muslims in the world. If even a significant percentage of them wanted war, there would be one, and there’d be no stopping it.

But most of them are like most of us: apt to mind their own business, and just go about the daily business of surviving and raising families. Terrorist groups don’t go looking for their recruits, for the most part, among people who have something to lose, among people who’ve been around long enough to see glorious causes fail.

They go for people who don’t have much to do, whose own purposes and life don’t present any great barrier to going out and getting themselves killed for the cause.

Are you just arguing with me on this point because you feel you have to contradict me? Go out and educate yourself on who they recruit. They don’t even really care that strongly that their people be good Muslims. By many accounts, these folks are terrible at it, often lacking in education on the religion they’re supposed to be the vanguard of.

All the better! Just as cult leaders here tend to pick obscure religious traditions that their members don’t know well enough to question, so too do the ISIS folks pick the naïve and uneducated to promote their plans, because then you don’t get any argument when you decide to tell them to do something that’s patently outside the religion.

Your mistake is in seeing ISIS as a purified form of the religion. It’s not. It’s a degenerated death cult so extreme that al-Qaeda disowned it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t use violence and intimidation and mafia-like business tactics to keep themselves rolling.

Royal Flush-
You feel you have to lie about what I’m saying to win this argument, because that’s the sense I’m getting.

Look, a temporary injunction can be quite a political thing, especially when you have a George W. Bush appointee doing it on behalf of quite a number of states who just elected Governors who have decided their only responsibility is stopping Obama.

If you want to tell Congress to pony up the billions and billions and billions of dollars it would take to actually effectively deport and ship out of the country all the millions of people who snuck in, or were brought here by their parents, then maybe you have a point. If, however, the funding and the will to proceed remains at the level it is now… then all you’re giving me is a load of horse****.

Same thing on ISIS. If all you got in terms of political will is a difference in terminology, one that seems better at turning Muslims and Arabs against us than turning them against ISIS, I’m not impressed. And if you think what we need is another indefinite war in the Middle East, then you’re dreaming.

My basic politics on border security is facing the reality that with two of the longest land borders in the world, absolute security is not ever going to be the likely reality. More to the point, those are also our two biggest trade partners, so the borders need to be porous enough to let the economically crucial trade through.

Which means, inevitably, people are going to get through. Because our country is rich and prosperous, people are motivated to come here. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have the country that people want to immigrate to, than the one they’re running from.

One big problem, as I see it, is the fact that we’ve made it so expensive, time consuming and complicated to become a citizen legally that we’ve actually created a market incentive for people to come over illegally. We should make the process cheaper and easier, so it outcompetes the other, underground process. That will both reduce low wage competition (legal immigrants can’t be exploited to undercut the legal job market) and increase our awareness of those who are coming into the country.

More or less, in either case, I support us getting smart about the goal we’re after, and doing things that reduce the number of offenders we’re having to worry about. The Marshall Plan made sure that Western Europe was a capitalist bastion. Similar help might ensure an easing of anti-American sentiment, or policies at least.

Intentions mean nothing. Results are what count.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2015 9:12 AM
Comment #389181

So here we have Stephen Daugherty caught in his own double talk, hypocrisy, ignorance, and outright contradictions. Let’s analyze his comments:

Look, there are about a billion Muslims in the world. If even a significant percentage of them wanted war, there would be one, and there’d be no stopping it. But most of them are like most of us: apt to mind their own business, and just go about the daily business of surviving and raising families.
Let’s compare this comment to historical facts. Since many scholars and learned men claim Islam to be in the Dark Ages when compared to the rest of humanity. Then we have to compare Islam to the religions of the Dark Ages. Catholicism was the dominant European religion and during that time most of the European people were under its dominance. The common people would have no doubt liked to “mind their own business and just go about their daily business”, as Daugherty has said; but the religious and political leaders of the day constantly sent them to war against other nations. Catholicism held their control over kings (who did not want to support the Vatican) by bringing them back into subjection to the Church through war and uprisings. Now the question is, how was the common peasant forced into doing the popes biding? The answer came in the form of denial of the sacraments by the priests or by excommunication. Which in their minds meant a sure trip to hell. So how is that different than from today? We already know that Islam is a religion based upon Dark Age rules and laws. What Muslim is going to go against the Fatwa or Jihad command, especially when the alternative is eternal hell? We see absolutely no protests by Muslims, even in America to the atrocities that take place in the Mid-East, simply because they are afraid to.

Your next comment:

Terrorist groups don’t go looking for their recruits, for the most part, among people who have something to lose, among people who’ve been around long enough to see glorious causes fail.

They go for people who don’t have much to do, whose own purposes and life don’t present any great barrier to going out and getting themselves killed for the cause.

This is false; number one, terrorists groups do go after recruits. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. In Islamic countries, under terrorists, people are given the choice to convert or die. Are you saying the Kurds, Coptic Christians, and others who are told to convert, join the cause, or die…are doing so because they don’t understand what ISIS is about? You already said that the majority of Muslims want to live in peace and go about their daily lives; and then you say the converts of Islam are the ignorant, poor, and are those who don’t have anything to lose. So tell me Stephen, after these ignorant people who have nothing to lose and convert to Islam; is it then that they want to go about their daily lives in peace? In America, Islam is actively going after blacks, especially those in prison. Yet for the past 50 years the Democrats have spent billions of tax dollars to create jobs for blacks and under Obama, the jobless rate among blacks is as high as it’s ever been. Now we have an ignorant president who believes than answer to radical terrorists is to spend more American tax dollars and create jobs for them. How ignorant…

Are you just arguing with me on this point because you feel you have to contradict me? Go out and educate yourself on who they recruit. They don’t even really care that strongly that their people be good Muslims.

By many accounts, these folks are terrible at it, often lacking in education on the religion they’re supposed to be the vanguard of.

I believe it is Stephen Daugherty who needs to educate himself on who they recruit. Good Muslims??? Stephen, they are controlled by Sharia Law; tell me Stephen, when did these people stop stoning and beheading people for ignorance in Sharia Law? Again, let’s look at history; how many times did the Catholic Church burn heretics at the stake? A heretic was anyone who disagreed with Catholic interpretation of the law; it was anyone who tried to teach true science. So knowledge of the religion has nothing to do with the goal of the religion. The goal of Roman Catholicism was world conquest and the goal of Islam is world conquest.

All the better! Just as cult leaders here tend to pick obscure religious traditions that their members don’t know well enough to question, so too do the ISIS folks pick the naïve and uneducated to promote their plans, because then you don’t get any argument when you decide to tell them to do something that’s patently outside the religion.

Your mistake is in seeing ISIS as a purified form of the religion. It’s not. It’s a degenerated death cult so extreme that al-Qaeda disowned it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t use violence and intimidation and mafia-like business tactics to keep themselves rolling.

Again, a contradiction; you say ISIS picks the “naïve and uneducated to promote their plans” and then you say that most of these converts “are like most of us: apt to mind their own business, and just go about the daily business of surviving and raising families”. This is a contradiction. There is no difference between al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other Islamic terrorist group. They all have the same goals of world conquest, of destroying the enemies of Islam, and of the destruction of Israel.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 19, 2015 11:47 AM
Comment #389190

Stephen

At least tens of thousands are at war with us, whether we acknowledge it or not. Polls, that I’m sure you simply dismiss, show that millions of them agree with those actively fighting against us.

Of course those with not much to do are prone to recruitment. Especially those outside the active areas. But, as previous terrorists and even bin Laden himself have proven, faith, not lack of money or simple boredom, is what drives them.

To be honest, I’m not arguing with you, I am discussing things from a different point of view than the one you have been given.
I don’t have to “go out and educate myself on who they recruit,” I know who they are and what they are willing to do. And not because I read it in a book. I am also quite familiar with how the so-called moderates treat women, gays and non-believers of Islam.

I don’t see ISIS as anything more than a large group of Muslims who are at war with everybody who disagree’s with their religion. Ignoring that fact so as not to offend those who aren’t quite so fanatical, is dishonest and reeks of politics.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 12:42 PM
Comment #389225

Daugherty: “Look, a temporary injunction can be quite a political thing, especially when you have a George W. Bush appointee doing it on behalf of quite a number of states who just elected Governors who have decided their only responsibility is stopping Obama.”

A temporary injunction is not judicial activism by any definition I know of. It never ever creates “new law”.

Obsession with GW Bush is your problem, not mine.

How silly to state that 26 Republican guvs consider their “only responsibility” is to stop obama.

I fear my friend Stephen has lost his debating ability. So sad.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #389251

26 Republicans and 2democrat govs. That’s governors who represent the constituents of their states. The left will try to claim these govs are only doing this because they hate Obama. The left on WB borders on ludicrous.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 19, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #389256
“I think one of the things that is important to note is that the administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation by saying that they are motivated out of materialistic aspirations, that they’re motivated out of poverty, of a lack of jobs or education or opportunity and as a result, the courses of action that the administration is proposing are also materialistic in nature, saying that if we just go in and alleviate poverty, if we go in and create jobs and increase opportunity and institute this Western style of democracy, that somehow this is going to solve the problem, when really, that’s not the case,”

This was said by the Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii to “>Wolf Blitzer on CNN. She went on to say:

And I think one of the things that is important to note is that the administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation by saying that they are motivated out of materialistic aspirations, that they’re motivated out of poverty, of a lack of jobs or education or opportunity and as a result, the courses of action that the administration is proposing are also materialistic in nature, saying that if we just go in and alleviate poverty, if we go in and create jobs and increase opportunity and institute this Western style of democracy, that somehow this is going to solve the problem, when really, that’s not the case.

We can look to the past and see many different examples of where this has occurred, whether you look at Libya, you look at Egypt, you look at what’s being proposed with Syria. In each of these different instances, a dictator has been removed, there has been an attempt to institute a Western-style democracy in each of these cases. ISIS and Islamic extremists are more powerful and presenting a greater threat than they did before. So that’s why it’s so important that we recognize that these people are being motivated from different parts of the world by a spiritual, a theological motivation, which is this radical Islamic ideology.

In January, Gabbard said President Obama “refuses to recognize” radical Islam is our enemy.

A few days later the Congresswoman said there is “bipartisan concern” over the fact that Obama won’t use the term “Islamic extremism” to identify our enemy.

So, as we see, it’s not just Republicans who think Obama is a amateur. Gabbard went on to tell Blitzer that these radicals were recruiting from both poor and educated populations. Proving once again that Daugherty has no idea what he is talking about. I suggest Daugherty listen to the whole interview. Or…we could just discredit the Congresswoman.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 19, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #389332

Democrats are denying Obama’s claim on terrorism, and now we find Muslims who deny Obama’s facts. Amir Taheri of the New York Post comments on the subject:

“This is not true Islam,” President Obama has again insisted of the Islamic State and other terror groups. That he doesn’t realize this is not for him to say is only one of his elementary errors here…

“Violent extremism” is misleading, to say the least. (Is there extremism without violence?) The generic term obscures the fact that we face a specific form of terrorism rooted, nurtured and waged in the name of Islam.

Obama did defend his evasion: “Al Qaeda and ISIL [a k a ISIS] and groups like it . . . try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam,” he said. “We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.” Operatives of al Qaeda and ISIS “are not religious leaders — they’re terrorists,” he said.

In fact, these terrorists now call their outfit the Islamic State, or IS, under a caliph. And no higher authority has the legitimacy and power to challenge their claim.

Islam has no mechanism for excommunication. Individuals can leave the ummah and be regarded as apostates (murtad). But no one who swears he is a Muslim can be excluded.

Even very bad Muslims are still Muslims as long as they haven’t thrice publicly rejected the two testimonies. (The two testimonies are accepting the oneness of God and that Muhammad is His Prophet.) Thus, neither Obama nor anyone else is qualified to decide who is a Muslim — or what is “true Islam.”

Islam does allow believers to part ways with anyone they deem misguided or deviant. At the theological level, this is known as Itizal (seeking solitude). At a more mundane level, we have Bira’ah (self-exoneration). The “violent extremists” charge their foes within Islam of Takfir (covering up the truth).

Yet Muslims aren’t using any of these three mechanisms to denounce the Islamic State or other Islamist terror groups. We’ve seen no Bira’ah marches in any Muslim-majority country, nor organized efforts by Muslim “communities” in the West to “exonerate” themselves from the IS throat-cutters.

If Islamic leaders can bring a million people in the streets of Tehran, Islamabad or Cairo to burn the US flag and Obama effigies, how is it that they do not authorize Bira’ah marches against IS?

“Ordinary” Muslims may feel that, since Obama insists that IS has nothing to do with Islam, there’s no need for Bira’ah.

Go to any mosque in any democratic country and you’ll hear sermons filled with a “lite” version of the same tale of Muslim victimhood that the “Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi churns out in cyberspace.

Obama’s analysis has other faults.

At the conference, he said: “If we are going to prevent people from being susceptible to false promises of extremism, then the international community has to offer something better” — specifically, “economic growth and devoting more resources on education, including for girls and women.”

This is painfully naïve. The “Caliphate” isn’t recruiting among the world’s downtrodden. Its administration is run by highly educated individuals, many from wealthy families in Arab countries as well as Pakistan, Russia, China and Afghanistan.

The “caliph” has also attracted at least 15,000 jihadis and volunteers for martyrdom from almost all Western democracies. Indeed, more Western citizens are fighting for the “caliph” than against him.

His army, including many women from the West, does not consist of poverty-stricken individuals protesting against Western imperialism and oppression, as Obama implies.

They all seem fairly well-fed and stylishly dressed, bearing smartphones and expensive Swiss watches and cruising in bullet-proof limos.

To say that IS has nothing to do with Islam is disingenuous and dangerous.

IS is part of Islam, though Islam cannot and must not be reduced to IS or any other throat-cutting outfit. Humanity, including the overwhelming majority of “ordinary Muslims,” faces a growing movement dedicated to conquering the world for its brand of Islam.

While humanity is not at war against Islam, a part of Islam is certainly at war against humanity. To ignore that fact amounts to a dereliction of intellectual responsibility.

Once again, Stephen Daugherty has been shown to have no concept of what he is taking about…much like Obama…

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 20, 2015 9:27 AM
Comment #389333

http://nypost.com/2015/02/20/obamas-elementary-errors-on-islam/

Posted by: S at February 20, 2015 9:28 AM
Comment #389598

Jesus H Christ, what a bunch of low life haters spewing hate for Stephen.

Proof
“I don’t really expect much from Daugherty as his political acumen is directly proportional to what emanates from obama’s butt. One thing is certain, he can never be accused of thinking for himself.

During his hiatus from WB I wrongly believed he was sharpening his debating skills. Wrong! Same old liberal mush and hyperbole.”

“As said by the Great General and war veteran Daughtry. Grow up Stephen. A war is won by killing so many of the enemy that it isn’t worth it for them to keep fighting.”

“The left lives in a fantasy world of their own making. They use their politics to pick sides. America is the most successful, so everybody else are just misunderstood victims.
They justify their actions by what they have read in some book. From crime to terrorism, the fault lies with unemployment and the answer is for everybody to be members of some workers labor party or something.”

Lets face it guys we have been fighting the “war on terror” for at least 14 years now and what have we gained, just an ongoing war on terror. Yet those on the right still believe as Tdobson does ” A war is won by killing so many of the enemy that it isn’t worth it for them to keep fighting.” when such a strategy has not worked, shock and awe, as we are still engaged in the “war on terror”. What does it take guys for you to stop the foolish hatred of Obama and Stephen and realize the error of you ways.

What the jobs issue is about is jobs in the countries these ISIS leaders recruit from, including the US. If the potential recruiting base is prosperous they won’t be as ready to join the jihad. Simply put it will do the same thing as “killing so many of the enemy” without the enemy killing back. A long term strategy that will stop the terrorist from filling their ranks.

Will it stop all recruits from joining the jihad,NO but will it stop many from doing so YES. IS it the only strategy, of course not but those on the right only hear part of the story as, Stephen has pointed out, from their propaganda outlets. IT is but one leg in the over all strategy, which those on the right would know had they not let their hatred of Stephen and Obama get in the way of their judgement.

Another leg of the strategy is not giving the terrorist the moral high ground of religion. Will that perhaps stop those that join the ranks of terrorist for their religious beliefs? Probably. All of them, probably not but then it is but one leg in the strategy.

I mean guys how long do we need to repeat the same “conservative logic” mistakes over and over again before you wise up. The right wing approach to the problem, ” killing so many of the enemy that it isn’t worth it for them to keep fighting.” just prolongs the “War on terror” as the terrorist continue to recruit despite killing so many of them. Sounds like the war profiteers have clouded your judgement IMHO.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 22, 2015 10:52 AM
Comment #389733

J2

How do you take my quote as being hateful towards Stephen? I very clearly stated “the left,” and there was nothing hateful about what I said.

I do not know Obama or Stephen on a personal level, so it is impossible for me to hate either of them on a personal level. What I can and do know, is that I disagree with the policies they support.

Once again, you guys try to make it personal in another sad attempt to deflect, instead of addressing the message.
You guys have been using this “liberal logic” to dodge the facts for years now. When are you going to realize that all your faux cries of racism and hatred add nothing to the debate?

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2015 11:00 AM
Comment #389735
Once again, you guys try to make it personal in another sad attempt to deflect, instead of addressing the message.

Kctim, remember I am responding to personal attacks on Stephen as well as vague and ambiguous attacks on all of us. So to say I am making it personal is wrong I am responding to personal with personal, you guys made it personal.

Also if you read the entirety of what I wrote you will see I also went into why the strategy you guys bemoan is actually a good attempt to bring resolution to the problem, considering the strategy you guys favor hasn’t worked in 14 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 23, 2015 11:14 AM
Comment #389738

Kctim, here is a reasonable explanation for the problem many conservatives seem to have. Hopefully it helps you to understand why these attacks on Stephen and Obama have no rational basis and only serves to undermine the country.

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8089639/obama-derangement-syndrome

Posted by: j2t2 at February 23, 2015 11:38 AM
Comment #389786

From your link:

In 2003, the conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer diagnosed a new affliction in some of George W. Bush’s fiercest critics. He described the condition as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.” He called it Bush Derangement Syndrome.

BDS, at least in the examples Krauthammer gave, was mostly about Bush’s policies. Howard Dean, for instance, wondered whether Bush was suppressing the release of the 9/11 report because “he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.” Barbra Streisand speculated that the war in Iraq was partially motivated by the influence the logging industry wielded in the Bush administration.

Bush Derangement Syndrome was, in other words, a function of 9/11 and the Iraq War: it was an effort, often misguided, to explain how the worst terrorist attack in American history happened, and why the most puzzling war in American history was launched.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is different. It isn’t so much paranoia about President Obama’s policies as it is paranoia about the man himself — that he is, in some fundamental way, different, foreign, untrustworthy, even traitorous. What’s odd is that it is attached to a president whose presidency has been, in almost every respect, conventionally liberal. Bush Derangement Syndrome sought extraordinary explanations for extraordinary events; Obama Derangement Syndrome seeks extraordinary explanations for an ordinary presidency.

First: your side conviently forgets 8 years of Bush bashing.

Second: So what’s your point???

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 23, 2015 8:57 PM
Comment #389788

Great link, if your trying to explain how bad the Bush bashing was, but regarding Obama… what’s your point?

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 23, 2015 9:01 PM
Comment #389805

Sam, It seems you can only read part of the link then drool all over yourself as you think you have legitimate questions. Quit wasting our time with such nonsense.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2015 12:45 AM
Comment #389855

J2

You are labeling any disagreement as hatred and/or racist, that is taking it to a personal level with the sole purpose of avoiding the truths you do not like. If you weren’t, you would be able to explain how I am wrong when I say you use politics to pick your sides, and how I wrong to say what works in a book usually doesn’t work in real life.

As far as your link, VOX? Seriously? LOL
The first thing Klein does is dismiss the fact that people disagree with Obama because of the policies he supports, by claiming Obama’s positions on immigration, the 2nd Amendment, health care, wealth redistribution, private business, abortion, birth control etc… are somehow nothing more than just barely “center-left.”

The second thing he does is cry racist so as not to have to address the issues. Sound familiar?

IF you guys gave a rats-ass about undermining the country, you wouldn’t be working so hard to divide it.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2015 9:37 AM
Comment #389860

kctim, you guys on the right and your representatives in Congress sure go to great lengths to convince us it is not the man but his policies. The problem with being able to believe the denial is the strategy your team has been using since Obama was elected. Their are many examples but you know what they are so I won’t waste time listing them here. Suffice it to say your teams track record speaks for itself.


As far as your link, VOX? Seriously? LOL

Ezra Klein seriously makes the point kctim, whether it is VOX or the Mickey Mouse channel. Yes Klein uses factual information to make his point, why should that be a problem.

IF you guys gave a rats-ass about undermining the country, you wouldn’t be working so hard to divide it.

Kctim, lets look at the jist of the conversation here, Conservatives tell us “kill them all” Obama tells us “lets consider a Marshall Plan whilst fighting them” yet you insist it is Obama that is the problem. You attack him with a hateful fury for suggesting a different approach from the one that hasn’t worked for the past 14 years. Not very rational especially when the logic for the attack includes his immigration policies and Obamacare as reasoning to harangue him on this issue.

I suggest it is due in part to the Obama Derangement Syndrome that the country is becoming more and more divided. Of course this is the symptom not the disease. IMHO the disease is the conservative “winner take all” attack on this country that started with the Reagan revolution and the growth of the conservative movement. But this is a topic for a different thread.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2015 10:19 AM
Comment #390154

J2, yes, looks at the the “jist” of our conversation here.

“yet you insist it is Obama that is the problem.”

No, I did not. In fact, I didn’t even mention President Obama in my initial post on this issue. I very clearly address the policy and explained why I do not think that policy is the proper way to handle the problem.

“You attack him with a hateful fury”

Where?

“for suggesting a different approach from the one that hasn’t worked for the past 14 years”

Go back and read what I wrote, J2. I disagreed with ignoring the part Islam plays in our current terrorism problem, and with leftist policy that shifts the blame from that to poverty. Then I basically said that what sounds good in a book doesn’t usually work in reality.

IMO, the only ODS going on here is coming from those trying to avoid the issue in order to defend Obama at all costs.

Posted by: kctim at February 26, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #390323

It’s funny to watch Republicans and Conservatives aim their shots at me. They talk and talk and talk about how much better they are at everything, but then given the chance, their leaders screw things up. Thinking you know the absolutes about life and the real world is not actually knowing them.

ISIS is not as strong as it is now because Obama left early, but because Bush never succeeded. Whatever time we left, whether it was on Bush’s original schedule (which Obama kept) or on some extended timeline, we would just be propping up the failure of Bush’s occupation of Iraq, the low morale, low motivation forces.

Right Wingers these days have only one idea of how to defeat an enemy: wipe out enough of them that they become discouraged. Thing is, there’s more than one way to win a battle, and attrition is just one of many strategies.

Every call for us to intervene more deeply just puts us back in the same holding pattern we were in to start with. That holding pattern reduces our readiness, keeps bodies heading back home, and for what?

Attrition is what amateurs think of first, when they think about the way that people win wars. Thing is, the main element of winning is convincing the other side that further effort is impossible, or actually making certain efforts impossible whether they agree or not.

If, say, you have a defensive outpost overlooking the ground you want to take with your forces, sending a team to sabotage the guns there is a necessary part of winning. When they talked about the charge of the light brigade, the whole thing that makes it such an incidence of military stupidity was that one side just kept on throwing cavalry at the guns, instead of disabling those weapon.

Sometimes persistence in the face of imperfect circumstances pays off. Other times, it just destroys you instead.

Our problem is, without us, the Iraqi forces were just not prepared, for various reasons, to fight as a unified, cohesive force. They problem there is simple: we can’t stay there forever. People won’t stand for that, and for good reason. It’s too expensive in life and treasure to do things that way.

The citizens of those countries, though, are a different matter. They’re ultimately the ones who have to fend off ISIS and other groups like it in the long run, if they want to have a country. It’s best for us if they decide of their own free will to commit themselves to ridding the country of ISIS, and if the folks in the surrounding nations decide to either stop helping them, or start helping to destroy them as well.

We have to stop thinking about war just in terms of willpower, numbers, and attrition. We have to start working smarter, not harder, and aim to get timely results, not procrastination in the recognition of failure. Options for success dwindle as time goes on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 2, 2015 12:53 PM
Comment #390326

What’s funny is believing that their religion will take a back seat to owning a 7-11.

Those nuts are fighting for a God, not a job.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2015 1:39 PM
Comment #406705

Simply am telling you many thanks. I like to share these types of blog to my friends who like to read the blogs for gaining good thoughts and information. You can refer best essay writing service to get a best guidelines and suggestion to write your essays.

Posted by: custom essay at August 10, 2016 2:03 AM
Comment #407048

Wow! Happy to read such an informative writing piece. Keep doing good work. Allassignmenthelp is a site that is doing a fine job in providing online assignment help to the students. You can expect to get a fantastic assignment written by qualified writers using our service. Assignment Help online

Posted by: Assigment help online at August 30, 2016 4:58 AM
Comment #411227

MBA Report Writing
I am so happy to read this. This is the kind of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that’s at the other blogs.

Posted by: MBA Report Writing at December 15, 2016 12:48 AM
Comment #411231

Those who come to read your article will find lots of helpful and informative tips

Posted by: Programming Computer Network at December 15, 2016 1:37 AM
Comment #411232

This is really a great stuff for sharing. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: Dissertation Writing Help at December 15, 2016 2:16 AM
Comment #411236

I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences. Keep it up.

Posted by: Homework Help UK at December 15, 2016 4:31 AM
Comment #411237

only professional writers can make this kind of material, cheers

Posted by: BBA Dissertation Writing Service at December 15, 2016 5:00 AM
Comment #411238

This was a great and interesting article to read. I have really enjoyed all of this very cool information

Posted by: Power Plant Engineering Project Help at December 15, 2016 5:34 AM
Comment #411239

only professional writers can make this kind of material, cheers

Posted by: Online Programming Project Help at December 15, 2016 6:46 AM
Comment #414359

Verry nice post.

I am glad to reach to your website, however our website also offer similar content and we would definitely like to recommend your website to our friends

Posted by: David Mark at March 14, 2017 1:02 AM
Comment #414361

I am so happy to read this. This is the kind of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that’s at the other blogs.

Posted by: David Mark at March 14, 2017 1:22 AM
Comment #414386

I personally like your post; you have shared good insights
.

Posted by: john david at March 15, 2017 1:49 AM
Comment #421114

I am glad to get this information through your article Keep posting like this. thanks, man.

Posted by: Management Assignment at October 29, 2017 8:30 AM
Post a comment