Political Correctness...it's very own thread of candor

[James Riley]

..bites us all de vez en cuando.

Then there is "You're the shit" which is the opposite of "You're shit." When given two choices, pick the third.

 

[James Riley]

James,

I am curious as to how you feel radical Islam, ISIS/ISIL, Sharia States should be characterized and confronted. Certainly, not all Muslims are anything more than peaceful people trying to live their lives, but there is one common denominator in it all. A relatively small group has been exporting violence all over the world for 40 years in the name of Islam (the pace of which has accelerated in the last 15 years), but a much larger portion has been oppressing parts of N. Africa, Central Asia, SW & SE Asia in the name of the same religion.

I feel like failing to acknowledge the role their religion plays is ignorance, because having had the opportunity to meet some of these young men, I can tell you they feel like religion is a huge factor.

Treat them like criminals. U.S. get's one rule of law, foreign get another.

 

[James Riley]

I think this is where the vast majority of Americans, and most citizens living in Western Democracies, miss the boat. What makes the religion of Islam dangerous is that their religious leaders are also their political leaders and there isn't any separation between the two. In the Western liberal democracies there is a clear separation between the leaders of the "Church" and the political leaders. The legal system, the government institutions and social welfare systems are not ran by the local priests, rabbis or Imam's in Western Democracies. In the ME and throughout much of the Muslim world the Mosque is not only the center of worship but also the Courts system, the Welfare provider and the Political power of the area. So to many Muslims the government is the Mosque and Mosque is the government and that is dangerous for all the reasons our Founding Fathers were so careful to not make an "official" religion, even though many were devout. It is a mistake to apply our Western Idea of separation to church and state to what is normal in the Muslim world. Of course what makes them a brutal ideology is that all power is centralized with the Mosque and that is easily corrupted in to making people believe they are doing the will of Allah/God because the guy telling them that is the Political power, the Judge and Jury and their spiritual leader. Without understanding that it is difficult to combat the radicals in an informed and intelligent way.

We should leave the ME and let them have it. Everything we touch there turns to shit. Our brave men and women who have fought, died and bled for that part of world should be remembered for doing their duty and accomplishing their mission in the face of inept and poorly thought out political strategies but we should say that their sacrifice is enough and move out of the ME. It doesn't matter if it was GWB's invasion of Iraq or Obama's war on Libya, both turned into a shit storm of bad people grabbing power and using Islam to do justify it and making Mosque the center of power. It is the reason young Muslim men from around the world flock to be the ME to be Jihadist, they buy into the idea that Islam is the political and religious power that needs to be fought for and if they die doing it they are martyrs, There isn't a down side in their minds.

So be careful when you talk about Islam and whether or not it is an ideology and not a religion. In much of the world they are the same thing.

Nemont

Here is the context you stripped from my quote: "As to religion in general, though, I think it's stupid. But I won't parse one from another since they are all stupid." Emphasis on the phrase "religion in general".

I agree about leaving them to their deserts. But again, their religion in general can be parsed from the violent aspects of it, be they religious or political manifestations. There are like 1.6 billion Muslims. If they were off the hook, that would be different. I think of Turkey. They used to have a Constitutional provision mandating a secular State. Hell, even Israel can's say that. But, with our meddling and elevation of criminals to the status of soldiers, warriors, etc. there is a danger that Turkey could be a problem. We don't have a soft hand on our horses and we get what we get.

 

[RobG]

Just curios why Jihadi or Jihadist is accept but Radical Muslim/Islamist is not?

That is a good question. The word has a fairly specific meaning, that is, one taking part in a war against non-Muslims. The meaning of "Radical" is unclear. We also have a problem in America of not understanding the religion so it helps us keep the issues separate.

 

[James Riley]

That is the problem with being politically correct, most people end up just faking it in spite of their real feelings. Also the demand for everyone to be PC allows everyone in the country to get hurt feelings over words instead of deeds. Being PC often leads us to having fake conversations over fake issues while the elephant in the room is trashing the place. Often being PC obscures what the issues really are and gives the politicians an easy way out of making difficult choices.

Nemont

Bingo!

 

[jzeck2]

A thought on the use of the term radical Islam:

#1. If I lived in the middle east and was a Muslim, are you providing me a definition of the term or are you talking about me? If you are talking about me then I may have problems with you. I would rather have you talk about the the exact people you have a problem with than leaving it up to my imagination. Is it ISIL/ISIS, is it the Taliban, or do you you think all Muslims are radicals because you just don't understand or I don't understand you.

#2. Have you forgotten that it is an election year. And if I were a candidate in free fall would I not grasp at any branch I thought was stout enough to club my rivals over the head with as I fall hoping they fall with me and land first breaking my fall. Of course while falling I don't have time to consider the broader implications of the branch I have chosen to pummel my opponent with. And I can always justify myself by using the anti political correctness call to the populous.

#3. How is the term PC used in society today. In many cases it is used to allow me to say whatever I want regardless of the implications and to not have to offer a defense by throwing that label (PC) onto anyone who disagrees with me. I have friends who spout their virtue of "telling it like it is" what they really mean to say is I don't care what anyone else thinks and I don't care what harm it causes, I also don't care if it is actually true. I don't care that I'm an uniformed idiot either because of IQ or Time, or Political Persuasion, I'm just telling it like it is (or at least how I heard it was on whatever 24 hour news station I can't manage to shut off).

I leave you with a couple quotes

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain


"Open your mouth and purse cautiously, and your stock of wealth and reputation shall, at least in repute, be great."
John Zimmerman

 

[MTGomer]

They must think we're such a joke.
We argue over what to call them, while they want/plot to rape your wife and your 8 year old child, and sever your head with a machete, screaming 'Aloha Snackbar'

 

[jzeck2]

They must think we're such a joke.
We argue over what to call them, while they want/plot to rape your wife and your 8 year old child, and sever your head with a machete, screaming 'Aloha Snackbar'

The problem is: who is they? We need to be cognizant of who they is.

 

[Nemont]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1xg42...jon-stewart-wait--whose-side-are-we-on-again-

When we need a comedian to explain our policies in the ME and do it so accurately you know we are in a situation that doesn't require us being PC or worrying about whether one is or is not a "radical". We have made our efforts there a complete cluster without any apparent coherent strategy for anything that looks like winning the war.

Nemont

 

[James Riley]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1xg42...jon-stewart-wait--whose-side-are-we-on-again-

When we need a comedian to explain our policies in the ME and do it so accurately you know we are in a situation that doesn't require us being PC or worrying about whether one is or is not a "radical". We have made our efforts there a complete cluster without any apparent coherent strategy for anything that looks like winning the war.

Nemont

Wish I had the bandwidth to watch videos. I love comedy, and stand up in particular.

I prefer the words "Criminal" or "Fugitive" but we could also try "Bacha bāzī State".

 

[noharleyyet]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1xg42...jon-stewart-wait--whose-side-are-we-on-again-

When we need a comedian to explain our policies in the ME and do it so accurately you know we are in a situation that doesn't require us being PC or worrying about whether one is or is not a "radical". We have made our efforts there a complete cluster without any apparent coherent strategy for anything that looks like winning the war.

Nemont

U.S. Owwww!.....

 

[u1299]

http://newstalkkgvo.com/rick-perry-questions-governor-bullocks-position-on-syrian-refugees/

Just my opinion, but of all the States in the USA, Texas is without a doubt 1st on the list for which I want no advice on anything from any of their politicians on how Montana should do things. So shut up Rick Perry, your advice is not wanted or needed.

Gianforte, Perry, (Trump or Cruz) take your pick, = Moe, Larry and Curly....

 

[Gr8bawana]

Just my opinion, but of all the States in the USA, Texas is without a doubt 1st on the list for which I want no advice on anything from any of their politicians on how Montana should do things. So shut up Rick Perry, your advice is not wanted or needed.

I concur.

 

[noharleyyet]

Listen up bisches...Mr Goodhair has some advice for you.

 

[RobG]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/1xg42...jon-stewart-wait--whose-side-are-we-on-again-

When we need a comedian to explain our policies in the ME and do it so accurately you know we are in a situation that doesn't require us being PC or worrying about whether one is or is not a "radical". We have made our efforts there a complete cluster without any apparent coherent strategy for anything that looks like winning the war.

Nemont

It's even more nuanced than that. I went back to graduate school in 2005 (electrical engineering) and probably 20% of the grad students got their undergraduate degrees in Iran. They were extremely well educated, motivated, and sophisticated people. All of them remained in he U.S. after graduation because they don't like the leader, who is mostly supported only by the rural people.

The company I'm currently contracting with has a staff of 15, 3 of them are from Iran, and we have several from China, South Korea, and of course India. All those are recently out of school. One segment that is missing is the US born white guy (we have one US born Mexican in a tech position). There's myself and three other people representing the US, but we are very senior people. The other three US people are in Tech positions with minimal education. In other words, the young brains of the company are all foreign born. The other companies I've contracted with are similar. Many of these people are Muslim but have no beef with the US.

On top of that our customers are from Japan and Korea. (Imagine if we still were hung up on Japan being the enemy rather than real people with evil leadership.)

So that is the modern reality, we are already heavily integrated with the rest of the world, including Muslims. The US isn't an island where our policy can be kicking ass of everyone who doesn't share our views. We represent about 4% of the world's population.

I see there is already a video "destroying" Obama's belief that we shouldn't bring religion into the battle. The analogy was that we would have lost if we had declared war on the Blitzkrieg and not Germany. Then he goes on to attack Islam directly, at which point I quite watching. Well that is silly for starters because we are arguing over whether or not to make a big deal out of their religion, not who we are declaring war on. Plus "Germany" at the time meant their government and military. A better analogy would be declaring war on all "radical" Germans, then having a vocal segment of our populace promote an attitude that Germans are fundamentally violent people who need to be exterminated. For the analogy to be accurate, these Germans would comprise 1/4 of the world's population including some of our most brilliant scientists (like Einstein). Had we done that with the global reach of today's media we would have been crushed.

The second falsehood was an implication that the radical Muslims could take over the US in 30-40 years and we would turn into a Sharia law governed society. I hear this fear so much. These guys are barely past setting their underwear on fire in their attacks against us. There are two ways American can lose it's freedom: 1) we become so overly concerned with a foreign threat that the government concentrates so much power that we become a tyranny, (read Madison on this subject) 2) we convince the 1.6 billion Muslims that we are at war with them and they defeat us directly in battle. His type of rhetoric furthers us down both of those paths.

 

[James Riley]

Listen up bisches...Mr Goodhair has some advice for you.

I'm all about a Colt Single Action Army, 5 1/2". Engraved, no less. The one thing I always envied about politicians is the free guns you get. Sweet.

 

[James Riley]

It's even more nuanced than that. I went back to graduate school in 2005 (electrical engineering) and probably 20% of the grad students got their undergraduate degrees in Iran. They were extremely well educated, motivated, and sophisticated people. All of them remained in he U.S. after graduation because they don't like the leader, who is mostly supported only by the rural people.

The company I'm currently contracting with has a staff of 15, 3 of them are from Iran, and we have several from China, South Korea, and of course India. All those are recently out of school. One segment that is missing is the US born white guy (we have one US born Mexican in a tech position). There's myself and three other people representing the US, but we are very senior people. The other three US people are in Tech positions with minimal education. In other words, the young brains of the company are all foreign born. The other companies I've contracted with are similar. Many of these people are Muslim but have no beef with the US.

On top of that our customers are from Japan and Korea. (Imagine if we still were hung up on Japan being the enemy rather than real people with evil leadership.)

So that is the modern reality, we are already heavily integrated with the rest of the world, including Muslims. The US isn't an island where our policy can be kicking ass of everyone who doesn't share our views. We represent about 4% of the world's population.

I see there is already a video "destroying" Obama's belief that we shouldn't bring religion into the battle. The analogy was that we would have lost if we had declared war on the Blitzkrieg and not Germany. Then he goes on to attack Islam directly, at which point I quite watching. Well that is silly for starters because we are arguing over whether or not to make a big deal out of their religion, not who we are declaring war on. Plus "Germany" at the time meant their government and military. A better analogy would be declaring war on all "radical" Germans, then having a vocal segment of our populace promote an attitude that Germans are fundamentally violent people who need to be exterminated. For the analogy to be accurate, these Germans would comprise 1/4 of the world's population including some of our most brilliant scientists (like Einstein). Had we done that with the global reach of today's media we would have been crushed.

The second falsehood was an implication that the radical Muslims could take over the US in 30-40 years and we would turn into a Sharia law governed society. I hear this fear so much. These guys are barely past setting their underwear on fire in their attacks against us. There are two ways American can lose it's freedom: 1) we become so overly concerned with a foreign threat that the government concentrates so much power that we become a tyranny, (read Madison on this subject) 2) we convince the 1.6 billion Muslims that we are at war with them and they defeat us directly in battle. His type of rhetoric furthers us down both of those paths.

Agreed. The second thing would never happen because China and Russia and Europe would be on board with total war, ala WWII. 1.6 would be .000001 in about four years or less.

I remember when I got out of the Corps and went to a community college on the G.I. Bill. We had all these Iranian dudes with PhD's in physics and whatnot, taking remedial math. This was during the Hostage Crisis, right after Desert One went down. They were all pretty cool. You could tell they were trying to keep a low profile and at first, fresh out of the Corps and all, I thought maybe they were worried about us. And I worried about them getting all our physics knowledge. Turns out they were worried about their own country coming after them and their families back home. They wanted to stay here, drink Coke, wear Levi's and chase chicks. They tutored some of us. Anyway, I digress. Sorry.

Actually, let me add, on this last point about Coke, etc. If we truly think we are all that, and that there is a universal human attraction to freedom, rights, blind justice, etc. then we need to trust in those things, even during our darkest days. Our aspirations, as articulated in our organic documents, should speak for themselves.

"While all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple. For whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter?" John Milton, Areopagitica. [As best I can remember it].

 

[Tufrthnails]

On the other hand, there is a school of thought that we never should have called this a war, or called anyone enemy combatants. You only go to war with States and we elevate criminals by naming them as anything other than their individual, given birth name or "criminal" or "fugitive" etc.

So, imagine we treated 9/11 as a criminal act and pursued the individuals responsible for planning, financing and running that murder. Imagine when we had the support of the world. Imagine if we had the patience to wait and doggedly pursue the criminals like we do in all other cases. Imagine if a State, like Afghanistan was treated like a State harboring criminals and, if necessary, we went to war with the State after giving them and the world notice. No nation-building etc. Just go after the criminals and only violate the State's sovereignty to the extent necessary to accomplish the mission. And we don't decide what constitutes a "failed State." We just do our business and leave.

I think of it like Jesse James: He may have viewed himself as a soldier, a warrior for the Confederacy. However, the war was over, we treated him like a common POS, pursued him doggedly and got one of his own to shoot him in the back of the head. We did not allege the Civil War was still on. We did not treat him like an enemy. Had we done so, imagine how many more men from the former Confederacy would have joined him and continued an insurgency! Speaking of that, think of the KKK. These people were not legitimized as an insurgency. They didn't follow James. They were all a bunch of Fking losers and criminals.

So, we might not have 5,000 dead Americans, 35,000 wounded, no implosion of the Middle East, no unfunded multi-trillion dollar debts, no recession, (and for you haters, no Obama), etc.

In short, if you treat a POS like a State, he may become one: an Islamic State. And yes, there were voices in the wilderness who were screaming this at the top of their lungs immediately after 9/11. But they were lost in the din and we were all S on by the corporate media which silenced them, along with those who shouted them down as "un-American" and "un-Patriotic" and "failing to support the troops" etc. They got virtually no air time, save the internet backwaters.

Unfortunately, Americans felt good about beating the drums, wrapping themselves in the flag and getting their war on. That might be understandable but they were manipulated by men who saw dollar signs. We should have had calm, cool, collected, patient men and women who know the proper temperature of a dish of vengeance.

So here we are, all because we decided to legitimize a criminal organization. Having a "cause" does not make you a State or a soldier. The SLA had a cause. Think of all the militant groups in the U.S. that have/had a cause. We treat them as criminals.

Just some thoughts from back on 9/12.

You have your thoughts and feeling and I have mine. I'm not debating the legitimacy of the Iraq or Afghan wars. I call a spade a spade. They have a uniform and a mission. This root of the outcry at least from my individual person is this administrations underestimation of this threat from day one. To call them the JV of the middle east was a gross underestimation. To not call them what they are, which is a radical Islamic group of terrorist set to destroy every other race that is not like them is worse then Hilter and the Nazi Germans (which I believe if they had been left unchecked and allowed to exterminate the Jews would not have stopped there) the only difference is they do not have a defined recognized geographic location that I am aware of. I am all for dealing harshly with any and every country that is harboring or aiding them.

This whole notion that calling them what they are gives them some form of credibility is crazy. The entire world knows who and what they are (save a few media challenged countries). Not calling them what they are confuses Muslims and lumps them in with this group of radicals and gives them no ground to stand and say yes I am an Muslim and I practice Islam, but I detest the practices of this radical group. As hard as it is to believe I have friends and acquaintences that are Muslim. They themselves call them extremists and do not in any way shape or form condone the actions of ISIS. They want it known that they are not of the same belief. This Ideology we are fighting is a very recent form of Islam in the grand scheme of things. This very act is pitting America and the world against ALL Muslims.

 

[Tufrthnails]

Perhaps the audience isn't white, middle-aged men, but a broader, internatonal audience that has more nuance in how they talk about Muslim extremism.

How would you feel if the President were to talk about Radical Christianity that bombs abortion clinics, burns mosques or black churches or shoots up Planned Parenthood clinics? My guess is the christian community would be nervous about all being tied in to those actions.

The difference being we call them radical extremists why the double tongue here? A spade is a spade.

 

[Nemont]

It's even more nuanced than that. I went back to graduate school in 2005 (electrical engineering) and probably 20% of the grad students got their undergraduate degrees in Iran. They were extremely well educated, motivated, and sophisticated people. All of them remained in he U.S. after graduation because they don't like the leader, who is mostly supported only by the rural people.

The company I'm currently contracting with has a staff of 15, 3 of them are from Iran, and we have several from China, South Korea, and of course India. All those are recently out of school. One segment that is missing is the US born white guy (we have one US born Mexican in a tech position). There's myself and three other people representing the US, but we are very senior people. The other three US people are in Tech positions with minimal education. In other words, the young brains of the company are all foreign born. The other companies I've contracted with are similar. Many of these people are Muslim but have no beef with the US.

On top of that our customers are from Japan and Korea. (Imagine if we still were hung up on Japan being the enemy rather than real people with evil leadership.)

So that is the modern reality, we are already heavily integrated with the rest of the world, including Muslims. The US isn't an island where our policy can be kicking ass of everyone who doesn't share our views. We represent about 4% of the world's population.

I see there is already a video "destroying" Obama's belief that we shouldn't bring religion into the battle. The analogy was that we would have lost if we had declared war on the Blitzkrieg and not Germany. Then he goes on to attack Islam directly, at which point I quite watching. Well that is silly for starters because we are arguing over whether or not to make a big deal out of their religion, not who we are declaring war on. Plus "Germany" at the time meant their government and military. A better analogy would be declaring war on all "radical" Germans, then having a vocal segment of our populace promote an attitude that Germans are fundamentally violent people who need to be exterminated. For the analogy to be accurate, these Germans would comprise 1/4 of the world's population including some of our most brilliant scientists (like Einstein). Had we done that with the global reach of today's media we would have been crushed.

The second falsehood was an implication that the radical Muslims could take over the US in 30-40 years and we would turn into a Sharia law governed society. I hear this fear so much. These guys are barely past setting their underwear on fire in their attacks against us. There are two ways American can lose it's freedom: 1) we become so overly concerned with a foreign threat that the government concentrates so much power that we become a tyranny, (read Madison on this subject) 2) we convince the 1.6 billion Muslims that we are at war with them and they defeat us directly in battle. His type of rhetoric furthers us down both of those paths.

I agree that things are different in the fight against ISIS/ISIL. What country should we declare war on? The war against ISIS/ISIL isn't like the war against Germany. We leveled their cities with around the clock bombings runs including Fire bombing civilians who may or may not have been Nazis. Going after National Socialism was highly effective in the end but it required we kill millions of innocent civilians and ruin their country to bring it to an end. So unless you are advocating treating the ISIS/ISIL held territory the same we did Nazi occupied Europe I don't believe your analogy is worth much.

I am uncertain as well that we should bring religion into however if the President's defense is that the term is meaningless that is a pretty flimsy excuse to stand upon. How about explain to the American people a strategy for fighting ISIS/ISIL and still preserving our freedoms? So far the narrative is that it is all just political infighting and that the President doesn't want to outline a coherent well thought out strategy for moving forward except we don't want to hurt Muslims feelings by saying their are radicals in their midst. How about some of the none radicals start speaking up and explaining how their religion is being perverted?

So shifting gears how should we fight ISIS/ISIL? Label them Criminals? I don't know how far the reach of our law enforcement power are but I doubt they reach into Afganistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. We can't begin to kill them all unless it is a declared out right war and we are willing to destroy their cities and spend untold blood and treasure to root them out.

Also I am not arguing that we need to bring religion into it but if the President says the term Radical Muslim is meaningless then why the taboo when he can openly talk about Jihadist or Jihad etc. Jihad is a specific term that applies only to one religion and how it views those who are not part of it. Seems to me that religion is already in there.

Nemont