|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 30 2016 09:33 SK.Testie wrote:
...
For the CIA and FBI to say, 'don't call it radical Islamic terrorism' seems like a false narrative forced upon them. It's not a recruitment tool. I could be wrong on this one, but it seems like we've experienced more high profile terrorist attacks on the west in the last year than we did during the entire Bush presidency.
...
So you're saying the FBI and CIA are lying because they're under pressure from the Obama administration? Do you have any evidence to substantiate that, besides your personal belief that something else is true?
With respect to the last sentence, I would be careful about confusing correlation with cause and effect.
|
It's really very simple. Terrorists want their brand of violence to be associated with the ideology they've declared their own. By refusing to do so, the government and public at large do damage to the coherence of the message of terrorists. Conversely, baldly taking the ideological proclamations of terrorists at face value by calling them what they want to be called directly contributes to precisely the sort of legitimacy terrorists desire.
|
On June 30 2016 09:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.
He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general. He doesn't say radical muslim for the same reason he does not call majority of shootings in the US radical christianism--because that's stupid.
If there were people killing others in the name of Christianity and then blowing themselves up in an attempt to kill others while simultaneously reaching a peaceful afterlife then yes that is 100 percent radical Christianism. Sure there might be a pragmatic reason for not calling it radical Islamism, but that is still obfuscation of the truth. These people are literally killling themselves in the name of allah, in an attempt to reach heaven and its somehow inaccurate to call it radical Islamism? Their motives are purely religious and their actions are radical. Maybe you believe they don't subscribe to Islam? Because I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
|
I wonder how many of the right-leaning folk even read/heard Obama's rebuttal on the issue.
|
On June 30 2016 09:40 farvacola wrote:
It's really very simple. Terrorists want their brand of violence to be associated with the ideology they've declared their own. By refusing to do so, the government and public at large do damage to the coherence of the message of terrorists. Conversely, baldly taking the ideological proclamations of terrorists at face value by calling them what they want to be called directly contributes to precisely the sort of legitimacy terrorists desire.
So then it's not about a description of reality, but rather having control of the narrative.
|
On June 30 2016 09:38 Aquanim wrote:
So you're saying the FBI and CIA are lying because they're under pressure from the Obama administration? Do you have any evidence to substantiate that, besides your personal belief that something else is true?
With respect to the last sentence, I would be careful about confusing correlation with cause and effect.
I'm actually not claiming that they are under pressure of the Obama administration. But they will definitely be perceived as such from many people I think that's a fair assessment. I can't make that kind of assertion without proof, but the sentiment in reading what people have to say is very plain to see.
On June 30 2016 09:40 farvacola wrote:
It's really very simple. Terrorists want their brand of violence to be associated with the ideology they've declared their own. By refusing to do so, the government and public at large do damage to the coherence of the message of terrorists. Conversely, baldly taking the ideological proclamations of terrorists at face value by calling them what they want to be called directly contributes to precisely the sort of legitimacy terrorists desire.
Except that now you have terrorists on video bragging that the west is too scared to even say the name of their brand. I think you simply underestimate that terrorists unless they are dead, can craft narratives too. If he says it, good for them. If he doesn't, still good for them. So long as they are alive to fight and find a way, it's good for them. Might as well keep the trust of more of your own people instead.
Under what you've said, that could be them simply attempting to bait western governments into saying what they want them to say. But I'd argue that Obama has done a very poor job communicating why he had refused to say it initially and infuriated a good deal of his populace leading them to trust him less. Not to mention them attempting to omit Omar's transcripts & omitting the french PM's calling it Radical Islamism from a tape. It comes off as indirect, it comes off as subversive and shady rather than forthright and honest.
|
On June 30 2016 09:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 09:40 farvacola wrote:
It's really very simple. Terrorists want their brand of violence to be associated with the ideology they've declared their own. By refusing to do so, the government and public at large do damage to the coherence of the message of terrorists. Conversely, baldly taking the ideological proclamations of terrorists at face value by calling them what they want to be called directly contributes to precisely the sort of legitimacy terrorists desire. So then it's not about a description of reality, but rather having control of the narrative.
I think that, when it comes to terrorism, the two are very much intertwined.
|
On June 30 2016 09:47 SK.Testie wrote:
...
I'm actually not claiming that they are under pressure of the Obama administration. But they will definitely be perceived as such from many people I think that's a fair assessment. I can't make that kind of assertion without proof, but the sentiment in reading what people have to say is very plain to see.
...
Well, since neither the FBI, CIA nor the Obama administration itself can really do any more to disabuse people of that notion, I'm not sure how any fault would be theirs.
|
On June 30 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:
I wonder how many of the right-leaning folk even read/heard Obama's rebuttal on the issue.
Very few, it's better to regurgitate the same talking points over and over.
|
On June 30 2016 09:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.
He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general. He doesn't say radical muslim for the same reason he does not call majority of shootings in the US radical christianism--because that's stupid. On the contrary, if school shooters predominantly identified with a radical Christian sect, I would expect him to call attention to it and demand he do so if he didn't.
On June 30 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:
I wonder how many of the right-leaning folk even read/heard Obama's rebuttal on the issue. I wonder how you can claim to be for "[recognizing] they do have a clear and understandable motive" when it's the right talking about the left, but when you talk about the right, no attempt is given for comprehension.
|
If anything is clear from the discussion, it is that the people insisting the president and government use the term "radical Islam" have the same thought process as climent change deniers. Forget the experts and evidence, it's about that they feel is right. Even if the people trying to stop terrorist tell them it's wrong.
|
On June 30 2016 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 09:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.
He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general. He doesn't say radical muslim for the same reason he does not call majority of shootings in the US radical christianism--because that's stupid. On the contrary, if school shooters predominantly identified with a radical Christian sect, I would expect him to call attention to it and demand he do so if he didn't. Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:
I wonder how many of the right-leaning folk even read/heard Obama's rebuttal on the issue. I wonder how you can claim to be for "[recognizing] they do have a clear and understandable motive" when it's the right talking about the left, but when you talk about the right, no attempt is given for comprehension.
Are you going to respond to the part where (apparently) this stance by Obama is in accordance with the advice and instructions he has been given by people who should know what they are doing?
(Because if you're not even going to respond to the arguments people make against your points, why do you expect anybody to comprehend, much less agree, with you?)
|
I comprehend the rights claims danglars; it's just clearly all political theater by the right on this word to score points rather than based on an actual plan for victory using all the lessons on counterinsurgency techniques we've learned over the years; and that some on the right have ignored the frequently provided sound counterarguments. so they're just repeating a disproven point.
and testie, obama explained very clearly and well the reasoning, your sources must simply not have covered it. I recommend you look it up, it was shortly after the orlando shooting.
|
IMO the radical Islam thing is a nothingburger. Rhetorically my problem with Obama (also with Hillary's debate answer to "Who is your enemy you are proudest of" She said Republicans, people made fun of Jim Webb for saying a guy that literally tried to kill him) is that he appears to be so much angrier and so much more passionate when arguing against people who have sincere disagreements with him on domestic policy, than when a terrorist attack occurs.
Also, "Islam is a religion of peace" is something we can do without. At best it means nothing.
|
On June 30 2016 10:31 zlefin wrote:
and testie, obama explained very clearly and well the reasoning, your sources must simply not have covered it. I recommend you look it up, it was shortly after the orlando shooting.
I cover even the sources I hate that have their heads up their ass. I heard his address, and Hillary's comments on it. I'm saying that I don't believe it is very effective considering the vast increase in terrorist attacks we are seeing in recent years. It is indisputable that there is an increase in the number and scale of terrorist attacks in recent years, especially in the west. So it is perfectly legitimate to question Obama's strategies and his dealing with the problem. I clearly noted in this thread and before that we had to have a massive debate about whether Omar was a self-hating gay. It's very clear he wasn't. But I'd wager a lot of huffpo readers still believe he was. And that kind of obfuscation is not helpful to the political discourse. It increases the division within our own people.
Rather than being forthright initially in the early days and attempting to win people and get them on board, he has lost the trust on this issue by creating false narratives that didn't hold up. He has been intentionally opaque and suspect on the issue and it seems more like a covering his tracks/failures by making excuses. So he's lost the trust on that issue. When he issues a statement, it's very fair for people to not believe him now.
|
On June 30 2016 10:27 Plansix wrote:
If anything is clear from the discussion, it is that the people insisting the president and government use the term "radical Islam" have the same thought process as climent change deniers. Forget the experts and evidence, it's about that they feel is right. Even if the people trying to stop terrorist tell them it's wrong.
keep trivializing the right's positions. This is the reason why trump is so popular in the first place regardless of his absolute ridiculousness at times.
|
On June 30 2016 10:36 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 10:31 zlefin wrote:
and testie, obama explained very clearly and well the reasoning, your sources must simply not have covered it. I recommend you look it up, it was shortly after the orlando shooting. I cover even the sources I hate. I heard his address, and Hillary's comments on it. I'm saying that I don't believe it is very effective considering the vast increase in terrorist attacks we are seeing in recent years. It is indisputable that there is an increase in the number and scale of terrorist attacks in recent years, especially in the west.
Supposing that that fact is indisputable, that does not make any causative relationship between that fact and the Obama administration's approach to the problem indisputable.
|
On June 30 2016 10:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 10:27 Plansix wrote:
If anything is clear from the discussion, it is that the people insisting the president and government use the term "radical Islam" have the same thought process as climent change deniers. Forget the experts and evidence, it's about that they feel is right. Even if the people trying to stop terrorist tell them it's wrong. keep trivializing the right's positions. This is the reason why trump is so popular in the first place regardless of his absolute ridiculousness at times.
The CIA and FBI do it for me. They are not interested in scoring political point domesticity with meaningless words that do real harm abroad. When every expert says they are wrong, it's not about reality any more. It's about what makes them feel good.
|
On June 30 2016 10:36 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 10:31 zlefin wrote:
and testie, obama explained very clearly and well the reasoning, your sources must simply not have covered it. I recommend you look it up, it was shortly after the orlando shooting. I cover even the sources I hate that have their heads up their ass. I heard his address, and Hillary's comments on it. I'm saying that I don't believe it is very effective considering the vast increase in terrorist attacks we are seeing in recent years. It is indisputable that there is an increase in the number and scale of terrorist attacks in recent years, especially in the west. So it is perfectly legitimate to question Obama's strategies and his dealing with the problem. I clearly noted in this thread and before that we had to have a massive debate about whether Omar was a self-hating gay. It's very clear he wasn't. But I'd wager a lot of huffpo readers still believe he was. And that kind of obfuscation is not helpful to the political discourse. It increases the division within our own people. Rather than being forthright initially in the early days and attempting to win people and get them on board, he has lost the trust on this issue by creating false narratives that didn't hold up. He has been intentionally opaque and suspect on the issue and it seems more like a covering his tracks/failures by making excuses. So he's lost the trust on that issue. When he issues a statement, it's very fair for people to not believe him now.
That would be very much disputable
The reason Obama is avoiding useless rhetoric is because it would fuel the narrative that terrorists want to create, as many people have pointed out. There's not more to it. The right of course welcomes this because they're caught in the exact same race war mindset.
|
testie -> also, on the self-hating gay issue; that wasn't obfuscation by the administratoin; that was people trying to figure out what was happening in the immediate aftermath, before we had good information. It wasn't clear at the time, it became clear later. It's why I tend to advocate for reserving judgment until we have more info and have done investigations. Yes, it's annoying that some people continue to believe an incorrect version because they only heard parts of the initial story and not the followup later, but that's not on the administration.
as to your loss of trust/opaqueness points; that's more a result of confirmation bias + politics causing some people ot have a continuously negative view of him. The republicans will attack obama whatever he does, that's just sadly how politics works sometimes; at least until we find a way to get rid of politicians.
as to your other points, others have already ably addressed them.
PS I consider DoD and other studies on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies to be a better source than your opinion that it's a good or bad strategy to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
