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

[RobG]

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.

Read what BHO said and answer the questions he raised.

It isn't an ignorance of who we are fighting. Do you really think calling them something else would help the people fighting this war suddenly identify their targets? That is a ridiculous belief.

The only thing bringing religion into the public comments would do is convince more Muslims that we are fighting a holy war against them. That, more than anything, is what the bad guys need because most Muslims don't want to get into this battle.

 

[Nemont]

But that doesn't make any of them barbaric political ideologies.

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

 

[Gr8bawana]

So I'm wondering why none of you denigrating political correctness have jumped up to cheer trump mocking this reporter with a disability.
You need to start making fun of and mocking all those with disabilities because if you don't you're just being politically correct.
Default
Here's one more reason Trump is unfit. I sure hope none of you Trump supporters never have a child or a grandkid with a disability because this is what that idiot thinks of disabled people. This shows you how truly rotten trump is on the inside.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vNwb84nm4Iu1yQ

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Read what BHO said and answer the questions he raised.

It isn't an ignorance of who we are fighting. Do you really think calling them something else would help the people fighting this war suddenly identify their targets? That is a ridiculous belief.

The only thing bringing religion into the public comments would do is convince more Muslims that we are fighting a holy war against them. That, more than anything, is what the bad guys need because most Muslims don't want to get into this battle.

His most recent comments in response to Orlando?

What if you brought it into the discussion in a way that differentiates the element we are fighting from the rest? Maybe you are right, in that the average American doesn't have the enough insight to make the differentiation, and it would only demonize the religion. The lens I view this from is maybe too detailed for it to translate well to the masses.

Where I struggle, is that to solve a problem, you first have to understand it in detail. Is the argument then that we don't publically acknowledge the connection? The reality is that the Americans that actually need to confront the issue better understand the thought process of those they are trying to fight.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

So I'm wondering why none of you denigrating political correctness have jumped up to cheer trump mocking this reporter with a disability.
You need to start making fun of and mocking all those with disabilities because if you don't you're just being politically correct.
Default
Here's one more reason Trump is unfit. I sure hope none of you Trump supporters never have a child or a grandkid with a disability because this is what that idiot thinks of disabled people. This shows you how truly rotten trump is on the inside.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vNwb84nm4Iu1yQ

Good lord.....you really have a hard on for old Donald, this discussion has nothing to do with him. Also, some people have a little more nuanced thought than, if I am not a Hillary supporter, I must be a die hard Trump follower.

 

[Nemont]

So I'm wondering why none of you denigrating political correctness have jumped up to cheer trump mocking this reporter with a disability.
You need to start making fun of and mocking all those with disabilities because if you don't you're just being politically correct.
Default
Here's one more reason Trump is unfit. I sure hope none of you Trump supporters never have a child or a grandkid with a disability because this is what that idiot thinks of disabled people. This shows you how truly rotten trump is on the inside.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vNwb84nm4Iu1yQ

You do realize there is a difference between political correctness and not being a dick, right? Trump was being a dick to the reporter and it is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, even the majority of Trumpteers, to make fun of people with disabilities. His action are the opposite of political correctness and veer into just him being a dick. If the Donald was politically correct he would have went overboard with fake sincerity touting her success while having a disability, while mocking her behind her back.

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

 

[RobG]

His most recent comments in response to Orlando?

Yes, I posted them at the top of the previous page. Here they are again:

“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration's counterterrorism strategy. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The president added: “There’s no magic to the phrase, ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.”

What if you brought it into the discussion in a way that differentiates the element we are fighting from the rest? Maybe you are right, in that the average American doesn't have the enough insight to make the differentiation, and it would only demonize the religion. The lens I view this from is maybe too detailed for it to translate well to the masses.

It isn't about educating the average American. They already know the connection, albeit often painting with too broad a brush. The people orchestrating the war certainly know the connection. So who are we educating by calling it something else?

What you want to avoid is soundbites from the President that the radicals can exploit to convince the "friendly" Muslim population that the U.S. is at war with them.

Where I struggle, is that to solve a problem, you first have to understand it in detail. Is the argument then that we don't publically acknowledge the connection? The reality is that the Americans that actually need to confront the issue better understand the thought process of those they are trying to fight.

Again, who would you be educating by calling it something else?

I hope this makes sense...
rg

 

[Nemont]

His most recent comments in response to Orlando?

Yes, I posted them at the top of the previous page. Here they are again:

“That’s the key, they tell us. We can’t get ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists,’ ” Obama said, referring to the Islamic State militant group after meeting with his National Security Council at the Treasury Department to discuss the administration's counterterrorism strategy. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is, none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The president added: “There’s no magic to the phrase, ‘radical Islam.’ It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy.”


It isn't about educating the average American. They already know the connection, albeit often painting with too broad a brush. The people orchestrating the war certainly know the connection. So who are we educating by calling it something else?

What you want to avoid is soundbites from the President that the radicals can exploit to convince the "friendly" Muslim population that the U.S. is at war with them.


Again, who would you be educating by calling it something else?

I hope this makes sense...
rg

To play devil's advocate then: If it is a meaningless label then why not use interchangeable with ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamist? Why avoid at all costs if is just a meaningless political label? I really don't care what you call it and don't think changing the label does anything but from where I sit it appears most of the people in ISIS/ISIL are both Radical and Islamist. I don't get the reluctance to use the term regardless of the context unless it is to resist the R's from getting a "win" on terminology.

How many American know what ISIL is? I bet less than the number who understand the term Radical Islamist. Just saying.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

His most recent comments in response to Orlando?


To play devil's advocate then: If it is a meaningless label then why not use interchangeable with ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamist? Why avoid at all costs if is just a meaningless political label? I really don't care what you call it and don't think changing the label does anything but from where I sit it appears most of the people in ISIS/ISIL are both Radical and Islamist. I don't get the reluctance to use the term regardless of the context unless it is to resist the R's from getting a "win" on terminology.

How many American know what ISIL is? I bet less than the number who understand the term Radical Islamist. Just saying.

Nemont

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.

 

[RobG]

To play devil's advocate then: If it is a meaningless label then why not use interchangeable with ISIS/ISIL/Radical Islamist? Why avoid at all costs if is just a meaningless political label? I really don't care what you call it and don't think changing the label does anything but from where I sit it appears most of the people in ISIS/ISIL are both Radical and Islamist. I don't get the reluctance to use the term regardless of the context unless it is to resist the R's from getting a "win" on terminology.

How many American know what ISIL is? I bet less than the number who understand the term Radical Islamist. Just saying.

Nemont

It seems silly to think he doesn't want to promote the link between terrorist and Islam because it would give the Rs a win...

It isn't exactly a meaningless label - it can be interpreted as waging a war against Muslims in general which would be very counterproductive. It is meaningless only in the sense that it doesn't help us stop terrorism.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

I hope this makes sense...
rg

Sorry, I missed them.

I guess if the purpose is preventing a sound bite. However, I think pretty narcissistic in thinking that the average Muslim in the ME has the time/interest in dissect the words of American political leaders. Heck, if they did listen they might even appreciate that we took the time to differentiate between them and the bad apples. The language used may have a more inflammatory effect on American than anything else (see everyone jumping behind Trump).

I tend to agree with Nemont, in that this is just political mincing of words. The damage to our image over there comes from the actions we take, not the words that we use.

 

[RobG]

Sorry, I missed them.

I guess if the purpose is preventing a sound bite. However, I think pretty narcissistic in thinking that the average Muslim in the ME has the time/interest in dissect the words of American political leaders. Heck, if they did listen they might even appreciate that we took the time to differentiate between them and the bad apples. The language used may have a more inflammatory effect on American than anything else (see everyone jumping behind Trump).

I tend to agree with Nemont, in that this is just political mincing of words. The damage to our image over there comes from the actions we take, not the words that we use.

It is far more precise to single out "ISIS" rather than "radical Islam." The latter is subject to interpretation.

 

[RobG]

The language used may have a more inflammatory effect on American than anything else (see everyone jumping behind Trump).

I agree, but only because some people are trying to make political gains by turning this into an issue. That is what is really sick about all this - the label can only hurt our efforts, yet some people would rather make political gains from it..

 

[BigHornRam]

What say ye...does pussy footing ameliorate those who want to kill and terrorize the sheep? Let the high saddled platitudes commence.

Does this classify as pussy footing or obstruction, Ken?


Whistleblower: DHS Pulled Plug on Surveillance That Could've ID'ed CA Terrorists


Dec 10, 2015 // 9:55pm

As seen on The Kelly File

Terror Expert: Don't Expect Calif. Attack to Be the Last on US Soil



A former Homeland Security employee says he likely could have helped prevent the San Bernardino terror attack if the government had not pulled the plug on a surveillance program he was developing three years ago.

Philip Haney told Megyn Kelly tonight that as part of his investigation, he was looking into a collection of global networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S


But a year into the investigation, Haney said they got a visit from the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, who said that tracking these groups was problematic because they were Islamic.

His investigation was shut down and 67 of his records were deleted, including one into an organization with ties to the mosque in Riverside, Calif., that San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook attended.

Haney explained that if his work was allowed to continue, it could possibly have thwarted last week's attack.

"Either Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his association with a known organization," Haney explained.

Trace Gallagher reported that DHS claims Haney's story contains "many holes," but declined to comment further due to privacy laws.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

It is far more precise to single out "ISIS" rather than "radical Islam." The latter is subject to interpretation.

What of those who are inspired by ISIS, but are self radicalized. What about specific radical Imams who preach hate all over the world, and work to radicalize young men, funneling them back to the ME or elsewhere? What about Al Shabab recruiters that work within 30 miles of my home, trying to send young Somalis back to fight? From my view this is broader than ISIS.

The issue we have had for the last 15 years, is that we try and use the paradigm of a nation state, when talking about this problem. That is why it is so difficult, and politicians stubble around trying to look good in the media, but fumble on execution. I see traffic at least a couple times a week that we shot people with drones. You want to talk about providing ammunition to ISIS, to make people think we are at war with Islam, that would be a good place to start.

I think we might agree in spirit, but are just looking at it from two different directions.

 

[BigHornRam]

Texan butting his nose into Montana politics



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

 

[RobG]

OK, basically I was saying if it is ISIS then call it ISIS. The point is to call them what they are and not to paint with too broad a brush. I seriously don't believe the problem we are having beating these guys is caused by not pointing out their religion. Bringing religion into the equation only compounds the problems we make with the drone bombings, etc. Domestically, it also fans the flames of an unjust anti-Muslim sentiment, which in turn compounds the problem even more.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

OK, basically I was saying if it is ISIS then call it ISIS. The point is to call them what they are and not to paint with too broad a brush. I seriously don't believe the problem we are having beating these guys is caused by not pointing out their religion. Bringing religion into the equation only compounds the problems we make with the drone bombings, etc. Domestically, it also fans the flames of an unjust anti-Muslim sentiment, which in turn compounds the problem even more.

Agreed. The very reason the are hard to define, is what makes them hard to beat. 95% of the fight is against ideas, and the actions required to physically affect the 5% just adds fuel to the rest.

 

[Nemont]

Which gives Muslims the notion we are at war with them more? Drone strikes that kill everyone around a targeted individual or the term "radical Muslims"? Thousands more Jihadist have been recruited to the defense of Islam as a result of the President's increased use of drone strikes than have ever been recruited by using the term "radical Muslims".

I have a question, why is the term Jihadist/Jihadi acceptable? The President used it on more than one occasion.



ji·had·i
jiˈhädē/
noun
a person involved in a jihad; an Islamic militant.



jihadi
[ji-hah-dee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
an Islamic fundamentalist who participates in or supports jihad, especially armed and violent confrontation.
See also mujahedin.

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

Nemont

 

[RobG]

Nemont - undoubtedly drone strikes have recruited more, if for no other reason both Bush and Obama were careful not to make religion the issue, but pointing out their religion will not add anything to the fight.

It is pretty sad that anyone over there under the age of twenty probably has no recollection of a time when the US wasn't bombing them.