Radical Islam

Why will some not use the term radical Islam? It is clearly the biggest current threat to world peace. Let’s be clear. Civilized people are against RADICAL Islam. This use of the adjective shows that we are not opposed to normal Islam. Were I a Muslim, I would be delighted to have that modifier.

Hillary says that radical Islam uses such appellations as a recruiting tool. She is full of it. Does she really imagine that ISIS recruiters are so scrupulous with the truth? Is there any Muslim country that has a truly free press that would report the truth anyway? How stupid does she have to be to believe that our country is fairly portrayed among radical Muslims? Did she learn nothing as Secretary of State?

Anyway, there are lots of crazy weirdos that want to kill American civilians. But the most organized, evil and persistent of such groups are those who could be called radical Islam.

Let's do the peace-loving Muslims a favor. Let's call them normal Muslims and call the enemies of freedom radical.

Posted by Christine & John at December 7, 2015 5:47 PM
Comments
Comment #401225

C&JU,
Donald Trump just seriously undermined your article today. He is a perfect living example of why we should not use terms like ‘radical Muslim.’ Trump is now calling for a complete ban on all Muslims entering the United States. Here is the beginning of his policy statement:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

It is no longer just a ‘pause’ on allowing Syrian refugees into the US. Now it is a ban on all Muslims. When asked for clarification, the Trump campaign stated that all Muslims, including Muslim American citizens who are currently abroad, would be banned from re-entering the country.

And that is why you do NOT use the term ‘radical Islam.’ The term quickly extends to some, and then all, Muslims.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #401226

Is that the same with radical left wing or Right wing phx8? Or radical Christians? Or Radical anything? All because Trump is playing the fool you would rather not call a Spade a Spade? They are RADICAL ISLAMIST just like any other RADICAL group out cropping. Call it what it is phx8 and quit with the BULLS**T.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 7, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #401227

Trump is not using the modifier. That is wrong.

I think our fear of using the term radical Islam makes it MORE likely, not less, that all Muslims get lumped in.

Posted by: C&J at December 7, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #401229

Yes, Trump is wrong, but he cannot be ignored. He has a movement that is millions strong. We cannot pretend they don’t exist. The adoption of alternative terminology is necessary.

Personally, I think the term “Islamism” is far more descriptive. The “ism” suffix tells us that we are dealing with a primarily political ideology, which is exactly what DAESH and other groups represent.

The decision to use terms other than “radical Islam” is not borne from fear. I wish we lived in a world where people were smart enough to understand the nuance that distinguishes radical Islam from mainstream Islam, but that isn’t the case. On this very website, we have people calling for cessation of Muslim immigration. That’s simply wrong.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 8:17 PM
Comment #401231

Warped, Banning Muslims from entering the country, NO! More stricter vetting of those coming from the M.E. YES! You can call them what you want, I’ll stick with “Radical Islamist”.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 7, 2015 8:31 PM
Comment #401232

Consider both World Wars. The U.S. fought Imperial and then azi Germany. At that time almost 25% of the American population was of German ancestry. These Germans - including guys like Eisenhower, Pershing and Nimitz, fought against Germany with very few holdouts. They and other Americans made the distinction between enemy Germany and friendly Germans. Germany suffered significant demonetization. We ridiculed and vilified the country’s leaders. We spoke openly about the evil traditions. We even started to call Dachshunds “liberty hounds” and sauerkraut “liberty cabbage.”

German Americans could make a distinction. Muslims can too. Those who cannot should get over it.

Posted by: C&J at December 7, 2015 8:42 PM
Comment #401235
Warped, Banning Muslims from entering the country, NO! More stricter vetting of those coming from the M.E. YES! You can call them what you want, I’ll stick with “Radical Islamist”.

I completely agree.

C&J,

The difference is we never questioned the patriotism of Ike/Pershing/Nimitz. We never seriously considered deporting anyone for simply having German ancestry.

The proper WWII analogy here isn’t German-Americans, it’s the Japanese-Americans.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 9:08 PM
Comment #401237

Jack,

“German Americans could make a distinction. Muslims can too. Those who cannot should get over it.”

The problem isn’t whether “the Muslims” can get over it, but whether the conservatives can get over it.

Frankly I don’t see what the big deal is with the two “magic words”.

Those that demand he say them are making out these guys to be more than what they actually are.

If Obama says them does that mean we win and everybody goes home?
If not then what exactly is the point?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 7, 2015 9:12 PM
Comment #401238

Rocky,

Exactly. I don’t really care if C&J or KAP say “radical Islam”. The term is proper and descriptive of what they mean. Just don’t get worked up because I feel a different term is more descriptive of what *I* mean.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 9:32 PM
Comment #401239

Looking bak to WWII I fully agree with FDR’s policy to inter Japanese-Americans for the duration of the war.

ISIS is nothing related to a WW but citizens should not be put at risk by bringing in a sector of people who might plan to attack them in some manner. It’s the gov’ts job to protect citizens.

Best if the UN sets up some decent facilities in the local area to care for the refugees until the situation is resolved.

Unfortunately the business sector will banter for the worlds refugees to head for US shores and the gov’t will continue to support this position.

Posted by: roy ellis at December 7, 2015 9:38 PM
Comment #401240

Roy,

Was it a mistake not to inter Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii?

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 7, 2015 10:33 PM
Comment #401242

Whether to use the term ‘radical Islam’ is a symptom of a larger problem. We have seen versions of this recently, such as when Republican presidential candidates proposed only allowing Christian refugees entry into the United States. Now we have the leading candidate in the polls, Donald Trump, proposing to exclude all Muslims from entry into the United States. (And BTW, in national polls, Trump is leading by a lot, as he will be quick to tell you. Cruz just passed him in one IA poll). This is not Trump’s first statement that would normally run any other candidate out of the race. Despite past comments inciting racism, xenophobia, misogyny, bigotry, and hatred, Trump has remained at the top of most polls. But this may be the most extreme proposal yet.

Will this radical proposal finally undermine Trump’s support? Or is conservatism charging with a full head of steam into an even darker and uglier place?

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2015 11:10 PM
Comment #401243

Warren

“We” questioned the patriotism of many Germans. It was worse during the first world war. German was banned in some schools. Some states banned the use of German over the phone. A German was lynched in Illinois. German-Americans were told to gather in public meetings to declare against Imperial Germany. They were expected to buy war bonds, to sing the national anthem, and to declare their allegiance to the flag.

The Germans had it worse then than Muslims have it today.

But speaking of the Japanese Americans - they had it much worse than Muslims today. Yet Japanese fought in allied armies.

Rocky and Warren

If you don’t like radical Islam, what would you call it? Is there another prominent foreign group actively trying to infiltrate Western societies in order to kill civilians?

Also consider the pre-9/11. Radical Islam attacked the U.S. at time when us policy was saving Muslim lives in Bosnia, Kosovo and where we had recently supported Islam to fight godless communism in Afghanistan.

Re Christian refugees - I do not believe we should discriminate by religion. But consider that Christians are very specifically targeted for genocide by ISIS.


Posted by: C&J at December 8, 2015 12:20 AM
Comment #401245

ISIS targets Christians, Shia Muslims, and other minorities.

Obama said it well in his speech last night:

“Here’s what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers… and they account for a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world — including millions of patriotic Muslim Americans… Moreover, the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.

That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront…

But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country.”

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2015 1:30 AM
Comment #401246

Jack,

“If you don’t like radical Islam, what would you call it? Is there another prominent foreign group actively trying to infiltrate Western societies in order to kill civilians?”

I would guess that you would have to honestly answer the question;
Are we actually at war with Islam?

If we are not, why are we even identifying these criminals as a part of Islam? They want a holy war, it’s what they long for, They want us to go all 10th century on them.
It helps them to recruit.

We have to be the adults in the room.

“Re Christian refugees - I do not believe we should discriminate by religion. But consider that Christians are very specifically targeted for genocide by ISIS.”

But consider that everyone, except true believers, are targeted for genocide.

I’ll ask again, what’s your point?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 8, 2015 6:43 AM
Comment #401248

Setting aside, for the sake of discussion, the idea that prohibiting entry into the US of any Muslim would be in conflict with many facets of our political and ideological tenets. How could this actually be accomplished. I heard Trump in an interview today say that customs agents would ask “Are you Muslim?” in order to determine if they should be allowed entry. Given that there are commenters here who have stated that a radical Muslim has no compunction to tell the truth to an infidel, how could they be trusted to say yes or no with any ability to accept the veracity of their statement. If that is the case then what could be done to verify whether someone is a Muslim or not? We could ask them to recite an oath of allegiance or a denouncement of a Muslim religious tenet however if they consider it alright to lie to an infidel then they could get by that also. Perhaps DNA testing is the answer, but how could you identify the markers that would insure that we had proof positive. Bar code tattoos could be employed or maybe even microchip processor embedded in the body? How far does this have to go to obtain the sense of confidence that this can be accomplished? The fervor being generated regarding identifying and stopping “radical” whatever can be taken to extremes in order to accomplish the objective. Is this a bridge to far? It would seem not for some people but I don’t believe those individuals have thought this through enough to be able to rationally discuss how the objective could be accomplished. Not to mention that there are different ethnic groups that would also have to be consider “radical”. Chechnian rebels, the Boston bombing brothers, Somalia rebels, Boko Haram to name a few would need this scrutiny in addition to the immigrants from the Middle East. We seem to be entering an era of political discussion that doesn’t really take into account how to accomplish the objectives we may seek, but that doesn’t seem to deter advocates and proponents of this idea. Not to mention the fact that it would destroy any pretense that the USofA is the leader of the “free” world.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 8, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #401250

From The Economist:

“Mr Trump’s long success says something troubling and revealing about the conservative movement, parts of which have become a fever swamp of xenophobia and a plague-on-them-all rage. More conventional Republicans gripe that Mr Trump is not a proper conservative… But they cannot wish away the quarter to a third of self-declared Republican voters who cheer when they hear Mr Trump vow to deport 11m people who lack legal papers to stay in America, promise to build a wall on the border with Mexico (while accusing Mexico of sending rapists and criminals over as migrants) and suggest that Muslims should be registered on a government database.”

I know conservatives do not like to hear it, but it is not just me observing the hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, and xenophobia of the GOP’s conservative base. It has become obvious. It is overt. This is becoming a common perception, and for good reason. Conservatives have played to the basest instincts of their base. They followed the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and various Tea Partiers in opposing Obama and demonizing liberals. In a recent poll, 43% of all Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim. So, they have encouraged nativism and hatred of the other, whether it is illegal Mexican immigrants, the Chinese, Japanese, Iranians, and so on. Now the bill is coming due. It is truly an ugly thing to behold.

Posted by: PHX8 at December 8, 2015 10:45 AM
Comment #401251

S4A,

I propose we have a system whereby verified non-Muslims carry some sort of mark to identify them. That way, ordinary Americans can identify each other and exclude the unmarked from commerce and the like. Because Ronald Wilson Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century, I imagine we could have the mark could be a series of sixes, each representing the 6 letters in each of RWR’s first, middle and last names.

What do you think?

Phx8,
Conor Friedersdorf, no friend of the Democratic Party, has a relevant piece in The Atlantic.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2015 11:37 AM
Comment #401252

The article makes a basic point: is racism and xenophobia a bug in conservatism, or a feature? Trump is betting it is a feature. Furthermore, in a crowded field of candidates, it is not even necessary that he appeal of a majority. A following of 30 - 40% may be enough to win the nomination. The other candidates have watched as Trump becomes more and more overt in his horrible comments. Not only does he not lose support, he actually seems to gain it! The others have not been able to resist the pull, and so the party becomes increasingly radical. It was only last week that Republicans wanted to refuse Syrian refugees entry into the country. Jeb! and Cruz wanted to make exceptions for Christian refugees. Now… here we are.

How much worse will it get?

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2015 12:09 PM
Comment #401255

Exactly. I actually don’t think Trump is actually a racist. He is just a really good actor who knows how to manipulate the slime at the root of conservatism.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2015 12:46 PM
Comment #401256

WP, ah yes the mark of the beast reference. Why not? After all we have to feel secure don’t we? We must stop the evil infiltrators at all costs, even if it is our human dignity right?

Trump knows what appeals to the conservative and Republican base that has come to be known as the Tea Party. They don’t see any racism so therefore there is none. They don’t see religious persecution except for Christians so therefore there is none. Indeed, how much worse will it get? My guess would be a whole lot worse before we see any admission or acceptance of guilt.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 8, 2015 12:57 PM
Comment #401259

Is Trump a racist? Or is it just an act to manipulate the worst in conservatives? I’m not sure it matters. Whether he does it intentionally or not, the results are the same. He is backing the other GOP candidates and the RNC into a corner. They should do the right thing, disavow him, and expel him from their party, but they can’t do it. They cultivated this base. They encouraged these beliefs. They continue to push fear. And if they back off on their pledge to back whoever won, Trump might run a third party candidacy- that is, if he does not win the nomination outright.

Posted by: phx8 at December 8, 2015 2:11 PM
Comment #401261

S4A,

All hail the Almighty Reagan. His head was once wounded, but he will rise again.

Phx8,

Just when I didn’t think it could get worse, PPP releases a poll of Trump supporters in North Carolina:

-51% want to see the Mosques in the country shut down, to only 16% against that.

-And only 24% of Trump supporters in the state even think Islam should be legal at all in the United States, to 44% who think it shouldn’t be.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2015 2:58 PM
Comment #401262

“Why will some not use the term radical Islam?”

Because they know that the only difference between islam and radical islam, is the will to act upon its teachings.

Posted by: kctim at December 8, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #401264
the only difference between islam and radical islam, is the will to act upon its teachings.

This is precisely the falsehood that needs to be dispensed with. Islamism is a political ideology, not a religious one. It seeks to craft a utopia, not unlike those of Communism or Fascism. However, all this violates traditional Islamic practice.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 8, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #401265

Trump’s statement was naive and ignorant because there are so many different sects of Islam (maybe even 73) and because so many individual Muslims live in fear of saying anything that might get them labeled a Murtad. It’s way too large of a profile to try and effectively implement and would never work.

Islam needs its own Martin Luther but based on the Quran that will never happen. That’s because as a society it is designed to be controlled by a very few, is very intolerant to individual thinking, and deals with reform movements with swift punishment. If any movement towards reform begins it will quickly be marginalized or eliminated.


Posted by: George in SC at December 8, 2015 4:07 PM
Comment #401266

“Why will some not use the term radical Islam?”

How about because I don’t want to, because it’s my choice. Are the conservative and Republicans going to start calling people out on this because of their need to assert political correctness into the discussion? I was under the assumption that this group thought politically correct behavior was an abomination? Maybe I was wrong and it’s only an abomination when it disagrees with their racism, war on women, support of the 1% over the 99%, dislike of same gender marriage, Islamaphobia, support of gun violence through their support for a proliferation of guns, etc., etc.?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 8, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #401271

Radical islam is political ideology based on the actual teachings of islam. The will to follow those teachings is responsible for nations such as Saudia Arabia, and for groups like the Taliban and IS.

The other main religions cast aside their barbarianism long ago, while islam has been slow to the party.

Posted by: kctim at December 8, 2015 5:04 PM
Comment #401272

RADICAL: Usually defined as extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms.

Classical liberalism” Usually defined as a political philosophy committed to limited government, the rule of law, individual liberties, and free markets.

Radical liberalism: What we observe being promoted by the Left today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #401273

The media is making hay out of Trumps statements on getting control of the immigration process. Too, the left is throwing all the bombs they can realize; bigots, racists, fearmongering and so on - - -

Last week the GOP put out the word that their candidates should become more ‘Trump’ like and pander to the populist/po folks. Confused, they are not disavowing Trump as a true GOP’er.

IMO, FDR’s approach showed good common sense, as does Trumps recommendations.

I don’t think that would be overreacting to the situation. I do believe the President is right in labeling ISIS the JV team. IMO, a couple of hundred coalition troops armed with 22 rifles could take ISIS out in a couple of weeks.

My approach would get it down to a week by droning them with napalm bomblets, phosphor bullets and use the old kerosene flame throwers to dig out the dug in.

I would think those in fear are living in/around the city of Chicago under the charge of Rahm Emanuel.

Lindsay Graham, is saying Trump is a race baiting, zenophobic bigot. His words? NO, but the words of his corporate lobbyists who doesn’t want the supply of table cloths and spices to be interrupted.

Otherwise, we have an underwhelming number of FBI or similar going around tracking some guys wifes, second cousin, who married a guy in Nairobi, and passed some money to a taliban commander and, and … still waiting to see where the trail leads, and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at December 8, 2015 7:11 PM
Comment #401274

If Trump has anything right, it is that we need to figure this thing out before it is too late. That means, for me, before a demagogue like Trump turns the Muslim world entirely against us.

For those who think that militant Islamic fundamentalism is intrinsic to the religion of Islam, I would ask then why haven’t they been attacking us for most of the past few centuries? Why are most majority Muslim countries friendly or at least neutral to the US and the West? Perhaps, I am wrong, but I don’t recall the largest majority Muslim country, Indonesia, beating the war drums against the US. Turkey is a NATO member.

So, what’s up with al-Qaeda and its progeny, ISIS? Who are they? Where do they come from? Who is supporting them? What events precipitated their rise to power, what are their alleged grievances against the West and what are the factors that generate support from within the international Muslim community?

I think that if we look carefully at the phenomenon that we will find it less a religious issue and more a regional political and economic power struggle split along ethnic and sectarian lines. We and Europe are objects of attack because, well…, we have chosen to intervene repeatedly in the Middle East, e.g., secret WWI Sykes-Picot Agreement dividing Middle East between Britain and France, CIA coup in Iran in 50s, Iraq invasion in 2003, etc., to protect our interests in oil. It is not all that surprising that there is blow back against the West.

So, while we certainly must destroy ISIS, we must also be aware of the context from within which ISIS has emerged. Realignment of political boundaries into realistic ethnic and sectarian divisions and balancing of power should be given as much attention as military intervention against ISIS.

The worst thing that we can do is to allow this to be perceived of as a war with Islam.


Posted by: Rich at December 8, 2015 8:02 PM
Comment #401275

C’mon Rich, it’s the plain ole vanilla ‘Jihad’ that has been around for centuries. You seem to be looking for excuses for them to be mad at us. Where have we attacked and drawn eternal damnation? Nicaragua? Cuba? Mexico? Vietnam? Japan? Germany? North Korea - whups, skip one, and so on - - -

It’s the same ole power play, Rich. Strongmen in charge of the state and determined to keep that power by catering to the mullah’s who are determined to remain relevant for life. That’s it. If the Mullah wants to whack somebody the state will help them do it. The Mullah’s need a bogeyman to blame for the world’s problems. It’s those capitalists that are screwing everything up, and so on - - -

We don’t have time to get into the weeds on the how comes and what fors. The cat is unbagged here and way worse in Europe. It would take the full force of the US army to follow the trail of would be bad guys/girls. Up in the air as to whether Europe can survive it over time.

Want the hot skinny on this? Just send some folks with recorders into the mosque around the world and you’ll bulk up your database tout suite, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at December 8, 2015 9:47 PM
Comment #401276

Roy,

I am not attempting to excuse them (jihadists). I am simply trying to point out that this is not a world wide Muslim movement against the US or Europe. It comes from the Middle East. More specifically, it is a Sunni fundamentalist movement. Even more specifically, ISIS has its origins in Iraq following the invasion of Iraq. We might want to zero in on the political, social and economic factors that resulted in its rise and support from the Sunni populations of Iraq and Syria.

Allowing this problem to be framed as an Islam vs. West conflict is a huge mistake. It is what ISIS wants. We need to be careful about trapping ourselves into a self fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: Rich at December 8, 2015 10:31 PM
Comment #401277

Roy,

Just one more thought. I have no doubt that we or some coalition of forces will have to literally kill the ISIS leadership and most of its forces. However, we should be aware that without addressing the underlying political problem in that area, a more vicious version of ISIS will soon appear just as ISIS rose from the dead (al-Qaeda in Iraq).

Posted by: Rich at December 8, 2015 10:56 PM
Comment #401278

With all the hub bub about Trump and his saying to ban Muslims, some time ago there was a Democrat in the W.H. who actually did ban and eject 15,000 out of 50,000 Iranian students from the U.S. His name was Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 10:33 AM
Comment #401279

KAP,
Don’t believe everything you read in a right wing blog:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/09/carters-visa-crackdown-wont-hurt-immediately/2d181230-dcf9-4fe7-958c-947b7626213e/

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 10:57 AM
Comment #401280

Warped, The fact is at least Jimmy Carter did something. This president won’t even do what Carter did. Carter at least knew there could be unwanted elements and took action and didn’t just go on TV and hand the American people a line of BULLS**T.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 11:22 AM
Comment #401281

This isn’t something? Seriously, stop reading conservative media. It’s just poisoning your mind.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 11:30 AM
Comment #401282

Warped, Yea and that liberal media is making yours mush. The point is, it didn’t take Carter a Fort Hood, San Bernadino, or Paris to act. He saw the danger and acted he didn’t pussy foot around like this president has. It’s to bad he didn’t go farther he might of had a second term.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 11:35 AM
Comment #401283

Carter admitted 14,000 Iranian refugees in the span of 6 months. This is 3x the amount of Syrians Obama has proposed that we admit.

The harassment of Iranian students, making them reapply for visas and such was mostly retaliation for the hostage crisis. Carter hoped that by hurting the Iranian regime he could induce them to let the hostages go. The problem with DAESH is terrorism, not hostages. A different problem needs a different solution.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 11:37 AM
Comment #401284
It’s to bad he didn’t go farther he might of had a second term.

Ever hear of operation Eagle Claw?

Never was it insinuated in contemporaneous news reports that the Carter administration deemed Iranians seeking asylum in the US to be a security threat. Forcing them to reapply for visas was merely a measure to harass the new government.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 11:42 AM
Comment #401285
Yea and that liberal media is making yours mush

I’m not the one repeating falsehoods on WatchBlog.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment #401286

Warped, The point is Carter did what he did during the Hostage crisis, and FDR did what he did during WW2. Point 2 at least those 2 didn’t pussy foot around like this president has.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 11:58 AM
Comment #401287

Obama isn’t pussyfooting. He took decisive action to neutralize the security risk posed by nationals from Europe and elsewhere who may have traveled to countries harboring terrorists. This is what good leadership looks like.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 12:05 PM
Comment #401288
It’s to bad he didn’t go farther he might of had a second term.

KAP, you mean like Reagan did! Are you suggesting Carter should have sold weapons to the Iranians? Obama should follow Reagans lead because of course Reagan didn’t pussy foot around right?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #401289

Warped, Yea now he does something now when he should have done it a long time ago instead of pussyfooting around. Good leadership is doing something when the threat arises not years after. If Obama was half the man his Democrat predecessors were, even Carter, then he would be considered a good leader.

Posted by: ich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 12:26 PM
Comment #401290

j2, Your comment isn’t worth answering to.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 12:28 PM
Comment #401291

KAP go ask Osama Bin Laden about our President’s pussyfooting. Don’t want to answer j2t2 cause it hurts when you think about the contradictions you are using? Not surprised.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 12:38 PM
Comment #401292
Allowing this problem to be framed as an Islam vs. West conflict is a huge mistake. It is what ISIS wants. We need to be careful about trapping ourselves into a self fulfilling prophecy. Posted by: Rich at December 8, 2015 10:31 PM

Thank you for such insight Rich. This is the problem and I would guess why Obama calls them thugs and such instead of Radical Islamist.

Why is it conservatives would rather beat up on Obama over a term they prefer, winning a battle here at home, instead of winning the war against terrorism?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2015 12:40 PM
Comment #401293

Speaks, if it wasn’t for Clinton and Bush’s intelligence he never would have been able to get OBL. No j2’s comment don’t hurt it was just to stupid to answer, about like your childish rants.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 12:42 PM
Comment #401294

j2t2, because they are only interested in bringing down the reputation of an outstanding President? They hope this will allow them to put a Republican in the WH in 2017 but don’t understand that no amount of lies and distortion can make up for not having a decent candidate that they can run in 2016.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 12:43 PM
Comment #401295

Oh, you mean the GWB who screwed the pooch at Tora Bora? That GWB. Look man your mind has been poisoned. President Obama is many, many times over the man you are or will ever be. Accept that and move on. Speaking of childish rants your dislike of our President is a reminder that only a child like mind would attempt to denigrate someone that couldn’t hold a candle to.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 12:46 PM
Comment #401296

ISIS= ISLAMIC State of Iraq and the Levant. Key word for those who don’t like to use “Radical Islamist” is ISLAMIC. Yes they are thugs, Radical Thugs who are Islamist. ISIS doesn’t care if you call them thugs or Radical Islamist or whatever, they want to kill liberals/progressives, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and Independents and anyone else who doesn’t believe their way.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #401297

Oh KAP now you’re scaring everyone. Wow, this is the first time any group of people have ever threatened us. You should go hide now. Grow a pair!

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #401298

Speaks, How come you didn’t mention Clinton in your childish rant about Bush. Speaks I don’t care that you love Obama and want to kiss his feet. GWB screwed up a lot at least I can say that, but you will never admit your lover Obama made mistakes.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 12:58 PM
Comment #401299

Well now you are making some stupid accusations. Look we know you are an angry old man that just can’t keep yourself from hating any and all politicians because you have been lied to by the people you voted for, that’s your problem. My admiration for our President is something you will never know now that your well of political thought has been poisoned by your own nutty ambitions and voting record.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 2:13 PM
Comment #401300

LOL…my beloved president is better than your beloved president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 9, 2015 2:59 PM
Comment #401301

No, I just know a good man when I see one. Your inability to understand that is something you need to deal with. Your estimation of someone to vote for as President is as lacking as your substance in comments here.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 3:12 PM
Comment #401302

Speaks, More childish rants can’t come up with facts you resort to childish rants that you know nothing about. Talk about an angry old man LOLOLOL.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #401303

So very sad. Poor Speaks is so politically flustered he can’t even recognize a joke.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 9, 2015 3:15 PM
Comment #401305

OK, you two are at your nonsense game again. I keep forgetting who the pivot man is in your circle jerk?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment #401306

Hey Kap…Speaks can’t stand a little humor. Poor lad, he’s pouting now. It will be his feeding and diaper-changing time soon and he’ll feel much better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 9, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #401307

KAP

ISIS may not care what we call them, but American muslims do and that is the reason behind the word games, excuses and denial.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-5-political-opinions-and-social-values/

Posted by: kctim at December 9, 2015 3:29 PM
Comment #401308

No anger and fluster here although your humor does leave a lot to be desired. You see the person I voted for twice for President will still be there until 2017. Considering that from what I can gather, you two are much older than myself albeit without the wisdom that those years should have provided you with. Perhaps you need assistance in formulating responses to comments here, ask the nurse to help you.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 3:29 PM
Comment #401311

tim, I think most American Muslims would agree with the term “Radical Muslims” just like most Americans can agree with the term “Radical Left/Right” or “Radical Christian” I also think most “American Muslims” just want to practice their faith in peace like Christians do without being stereo typed by Left/Right wing lunatics.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #401313
ISIS may not care what we call them

Uh, they threatened to cut the tongue off of anyone who called them DAESH. They prefer to be called the Islamic State as it legitimizes not only their statehood, but also reinforces their perceived fealty to Islam.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 3:59 PM
Comment #401315

“Uh, they threatened to cut the tongue off of anyone who called them DAESH.”

Oh, No…so much worse than having your head removed from your body for simply being a Christian.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 9, 2015 4:04 PM
Comment #401319

KAP
My point is that American muslims do not want words like ‘radical’ or ‘terrorist’ used together with islam.
The Pew poll explains why the left bends over backwards to control the narrative.

Posted by: kctim at December 9, 2015 4:20 PM
Comment #401323

RF,

The more ways I can anger DAESH, the better.

kctim,
Until recently, many Muslims voted for Republicans.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 5:07 PM
Comment #401324

“Why is it conservatives would rather beat up on Obama over a term they prefer, winning a battle here at home, instead of winning the war against terrorism?”

Excellent question, j2t2. I suppose that it is easier to be a critic and score a few cheap political points than to develop a reasonable alternative strategy. Indeed, conservatives have even refused to pass an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIS.

It’s the same old Republican strategy since the inception of the Obama administration: block everything and refuse to present an alternative.

Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2015 5:07 PM
Comment #401325

tim, I guess the left and the Muslims need to get some thicker skin. Being a Christian I know there are some “
Radical Christians” so the Muslims need to get over their objections.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #401328

I have a novel idea for Watchblog commentators. Instead of just trading personal insults, why not debate alternative ideas for defeating ISIS. Something beyond what label to apply to ISIS. Would that be too much effort?

Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2015 5:28 PM
Comment #401329

Hear, hear Rich. I will make a concerted effort to ignore the barbs and insults that are cast my way and renew my efforts to not return them in like kind.

Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the problem of ISIS, ISIL, DAESH, or just plain old hatred of the other. Your comments are always spot on and have never degraded into the personal insults that others of us have indulged in. I apologize but have always had problems holding back when a bully enters the room or discussion. Thanks for the reminder and lets hope your suggestion works.

I support President Obama’s policies towards this problem although that is probably already evident to many here. ISIS/ISIL/DAESH must be defeated as we have always defeated this type of assault on human dignity and civilized life. With stern determination and a healthy discussion of options and outcomes. But without giving in to their wont for discord and hatred sewn in our midst.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 9, 2015 5:37 PM
Comment #401330

ISIS, ISIL, DAESH, To defeat them BOOTS on the ground are needed and not all from the U.S. NATO has to get involved and the M.E. Countries. Air strikes alone will not do it. In order to defeat them all countries involved need to join together. They thrive on terror, give them a shot of their own medicine.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 5:50 PM
Comment #401333
To defeat them BOOTS on the ground are needed and not all from the U.S. NATO has to get involved and the M.E. Countries. Air strikes alone will not do it. In order to defeat them all countries involved need to join together

Absolutely. The problem is no Republican candidate (save Lindsey Graham) supports deploying American ground forces to the region. As a result of the disaster in Iraq a decade ago, Americans are weary of nation building, which is what is truly needed in Syria.

Still, we are very lucky the pro-western rebel groups and the Kurds have had remarkable success against DAESH as of late.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 9, 2015 6:37 PM
Comment #401336

KAP,

I think that most agree with the need for boots on the ground. The problem is that the boots need to be indigenous forces. While US and/or NATO forces could certainly defeat ISIS militarily, the long term outcome may not be so wonderful. We defeated Hussein in a few days but lost thousands of lives in a bloody occupation and insurgency. We should also remember that ISIS is dug in within urban areas (Mosul and Raqqa). The two battles of Fallujah fought by the US Marines were bloody and destroyed that city. So, we can win tactical battles but may not win the war.

Thus far, the only indigenous Muslim forces that have proved reliable have been the Kurds in Iraq (Peshmerga) and Syria (YPG & YPJ). With US air support, the Kurds have rolled back ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. The battle of Kobani in Syria was a heroic effort by the Kurds and gave ISIS a huge defeat. But, the Kurds are not the complete answer. Turkey distrusts the Kurds and considers them to be terrorists. In addition, the Kurds are ethnically different than the Sunni Arabs in Syria and Iraq.

The other modestly successful boots on the ground have been the Shiite militias in Iraq. But, there is the obvious problem of Shia Iraqis under Iranian control fighting a Sunni ISIS in Sunni majority Iraqi areas. Difficult to see the Sunnis supporting this in the long run.

The missing element is a Sunni alternative to ISIS. There is a need for a new “Awakening” among the Sunni tribes. That will require abandoning the Iraqi governing structure and directly funding and arming the Sunnis. It will be the death knell for the Iraqi government that we established during our occupation. It is also not so clear that it would be successful.

In my opinion, Obama is rightfully wary of direct US intervention and US boots on the ground. The outcome of the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan war (Russian also) should give anyone pause about jumping into this area again.

Ultimately, though, if there is continued attacks in the US or Europe, even Obama will say “fu.k it” and send in a large US force to kill ISIS regardless of the long term potential problems.

This is not any easy issue. ISIS is a symptom of a dysfunctional political system in an area destabilized by the US invasion of 2003. We need to tread carefully.


Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #401340

Warped, I don’t think any candidate Republican or Democrat wants to talk about sending troops over to Syria or Iraq. I don’t think anyone actually wants to put boots on the ground but IMO it is a necessity.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 9, 2015 10:00 PM
Comment #401344

KAP,

You are right. Rich has pointed out why we are treading so carefully. Ultimately, we are still paying a price for the awful decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 10, 2015 12:34 AM
Comment #401347

Until the countries of the Middle East that are prosperous enough to assist those countries that are in turmoil take an active role in helping these countries in turmoil there will be no solution. Why is it that the “terrorists” or “radicals” of these countries in turmoil take out their frustration on Europe and the US and the West in general but they do nothing in the Middle Eastern countries that they could more readily strike against due to proximity. It’s because they probably don’t see them as a threat to their jihad and in fact look to them for covert support. President Obama has been wise to not take a more active role in the ME and should continue with those policies. The countries of the Middle East need to step up and wage this war and until they do Europe, the US and the West will be their common enemy. I believe it to be that simple but also not easily solved since we are unable to force our objective and must wait for others to do so.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 10, 2015 10:15 AM
Post a comment