Orlando shooting

[AWP]

Regardless of what you think of Obama, it is difficult to say he has been soft on terrorism. Especially if you account for drone-strikes and SOF use.

That said, when he speaks he does everything he can to avoid using trigger phrases such as "radical Islam", why? Is it really just because he does not want to acknowledge there are cells here and is trying to keep a WW2 Japanese internment camp from happening , or is it something more politically international?

I have no doubt JSOC and OGA's are doing things we'll never know and I'm fine with that. Our drone strikes are working. So we have these in the Pro column.

Then we have the Con and oh boy do we have a Con.

The Haqqani Network wasn't designated as a terrorist organization until 2012. Ignore the fact that the group was active years before 2012. 2014 saw the US Treasury finally designate the HQN leadership as "Specially Designated Global Terrorists" which opened them to financial sanctions. Bengazi was a movie....oh, nevermind. Not a movie. The reluctance to call anything a terrorist act (San Bernandino and Fort Hood), and Fort Hood is a story unto itself. Remember it was "workplace violence" long before it become "terrorism." Our "friends" in Qatar and Pakistan support terrorists so we of course run the entire air war from Qatar and sent PK over 20 billion dollars since 9/11. Look at the fight in Iraq...it is a sham.

A Pakistani general once said that he wanted Afghanistan during the Soviets to be a pot that boils but doesn't boil over; take it right to the edge before it spills out. I think we're playing a similar game doing one thing, saying another, ignoring the obvious...whatever. Why are we doing this? Are we trying to keep the masses from going nuts? Are we sympathetic to Muslims because of some hidden agenda? Are we just stupid or pandering to human rights groups who want to hug the world? I have no clue, but I can't argue that we're hard on terrorism.

 

[Brill]

Regardless of what you think of Obama, it is difficult to say he has been soft on terrorism. Especially if you account for drone-strikes and SOF use.

Yazidis, Abu Nur tribesman, and quite a few Shias would strongly disagree with you on that. Libya, Nigeria, Yemen, and Afghanistan have seen a significant rise in IS; ANF is gaining strength, and the Taliban are making a strong comeback. GITMO recidivism is high.

Random drone strikes don't make a cohesive CT strategy but buys time until 20 Jan 2017 when he can give that problem to ANYONE else.

 

[AWP]

The president responds to the phrase "radical Islam."

Obama unleashes on GOP critics over 'radical Islam' term | Fox News

“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”

“We don’t have religious tests here,” Obama said, without attacking Trump by name. But answering one of Trump’s most frequent accusations, the president said his reluctance to use the phrase “radical Islam” has “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”

He said groups like ISIS “want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims … who reject their crazy notions,” and a move to single out Muslims in America “betrays the very values America stands for.”

Here's the problem, this isn't about America. This is a worldwide problem and we've allegedly taken point in dealing with said problem, yet we won't call it "radical Islam" even though that's exactly what we're facing. A phrase doesn't defeat anything, but we still won't call it for what it is because....? Nonsense. This cockamamie explanation will only give his critics more ammunition. Defeating terrorism makes it sound like we have a strategy which I'm skeptical exists.

 

[Brill]

He looks weak not saying what world leaders and everyone, including Muslims, are saying.

 

[Red Flag 1]

The president responds to the phrase "radical Islam."

Obama unleashes on GOP critics over 'radical Islam' term | Fox News



Here's the problem, this isn't about America. This is a worldwide problem and we've allegedly taken point in dealing with said problem, yet we won't call it "radical Islam" even though that's exactly what we're facing. A phrase doesn't defeat anything, but we still won't call it for what it is because....? Nonsense. This cockamamie explanation will only give his critics more ammunition. Defeating terrorism makes it sound like we have a strategy which I'm skeptical exists.

For those with any questions about Politicol Correctness (PC), read obama's words and apply them to what is being discussed. His words change nothing at all, but change what they are called, because it is a politician saying it is best.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Leadership

<LINK REPAIRED>

 

[DocIllinois]

Leadership

Islam has all the makings of a cult of death. Radicalism and suicidal jihad are now the highest profile standard by which it relates to the rest of the world; we are indeed all targets barring subjugation or conversion.

A reading of the Koran will allay doubts about the above sentences.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

We have a President of the United States named

Barrack Hussein Obama.

Come on now. Please don't go down that path. It will distract from any solid points you make.

 

[Totentanz]

Come on now. Please don't go down that path. It will distract from any solid points you make.

Seconded, because a) this thread has more than its share of political discourse, and b) I really don't think that line of discussion will result in anything productive; while the presidency is a powerful entity and has significant influence over US policy, the issues surrounding how this came to pass are on the scale of whole-of-government, not whole-of-Oval-Office.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I have no doubt JSOC and OGA's are doing things we'll never know and I'm fine with that.

I tend to not trust the government, but I agree with the aspects of rough, honest men, doing bad things to bad people on my behalf. I trust those men to do what is necessary, and say a little prayer for them every night, because I am truly thankful they take on that task, thanklessly.

Anyway, wanted to isolate this tid-bit for agreement...i also agree with that other bullshit you wrote.

 

[Gunz]

Come on now. Please don't go down that path. It will distract from any solid points you make.

And yet you just reacted to a mere statement of fact, a man's full given name, with no overt indication of context or inflection, as if it were a trigger phrase. Was it the use of the middle name or the framing?

The discussion had turned to words. Why won't the President state the truth and call our enemies, with whom we've been in open war with for 15 years, what they are? Radical Islamic Jihadists...a term that automatically and clearly indicates they are not law abiding, peace-loving practitioners of the Muslim faith. He won't because just the phrase, as truthful as it is, connotes an image and stimulates a reaction just as my use of his name did in you.

Either way it's just a name.

DocIllinois, who agreed with your admonishment, in the post above mine, wrote that "Islam has all the makings of a cult of death..." Clearly, taken by itself, inflammatory to the average non-violent Muslim. And yet there was more negative reaction to my use of the President's name. I didn't call him a Muslim, peace-loving or otherwise, or say how I felt about him one way or another.

Words have unseen power to impact. The President may be overly cautious with his in regard to terrorist attacks; or he may be exercising good judgement and restraint.

It's a matter of interpretation.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

And yet you just reacted to a mere statement of fact, a man's full given name, with no overt indication of context or inflection, as if it were a trigger phrase. Was it the use of the middle name or the framing?

Because...and you know this, 99.99% of the time using his full name like you did in a discussion like this, to include his middle name, is meant only to insinuate his alleged ties to the Muslim faith. From the reader is expected to jump to the conclusion that if he is pro-Muslim, and if that's true then he must either be one, or for their agenda.

Powerful words, indeed.

I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to my question a few posts ago (why won't Obama say what they are?), so I went in search of. The National Review is not exactly a pro-Obama magazine, infact it has been one of my primary sources of balanced Republican news/doctrine for years. Worth a read...

The ‘Radical Islam’ Shibboleth, by Ben Shapiro, National Review





.

 

[Gunz]

Because...and you know this, 99.99% of the time using his full name like you did in a discussion like this, to include his middle name, is meant only to insinuate his alleged ties to the Muslim faith. From the reader is expected to jump to the conclusion that if he is pro-Muslim, and if that's true then he must either be one, or for their agenda.

Powerful words, indeed.

I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to my question a few posts ago (why won't Obama say what they are?), so I went in search of. The National Review is not exactly a pro-Obama magazine, infact it has been one of my primary sources of balanced Republican news/doctrine for years. Worth a read...

The ‘Radical Islam’ Shibboleth, by Ben Shapiro, National Review





.

Yes, I know I know it. I made a Trump-esq squad bay remark and tried to sea-lawyer my way out of it...and I apologize.

But in the process found myself a little more sympathetic to POTUS's choice of words. I read the Ben Shapiro article and it sounds reasonable; but is he overthinking this? Couldn't it be simply that liberal politicians are obsessed with political correctness and are loath to say anything that might be in the least offensive to anybody, particularly the voting blocks they profess to represent? And who knows, he may think half the country is comprised of gun-toting toothless rednecks who'll start burning down mosques if he ramps up his rhetoric. After all, ISIS propaganda incites lone-wolf mass murder.

On the other hand, we have Trump, who uses words like shrapnel with, seemingly, little concern to where the physics impact. If he ever gets to the White House he may have to bring it down a notch.

 

[Totentanz]

Yes, I know I know it. I made a Trump-esq squad bay remark and tried to sea-lawyer my way out of it...and I apologize.

Thanks for being honest about it.

I think Trump's smart enough to know when to ratchet it up (eg firing up crowd during a campaign) and when to dial it back. That doesn't mean that he's an expert statesman, but I think he has a solid handle on who can and can't afford to piss off.

 

[Brill]

I think Trump's smart enough to know when to ratchet it up (eg firing up crowd during a campaign) and when to dial it back. That doesn't mean that he's an expert statesman, but I think he has a solid handle on who can and can't afford to piss off.

I dunno man. His latest verbal against the GOP really makes me question his judgement.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I dunno man. His latest verbal against the GOP really makes me question his judgement.

I think the 'Donald' is far more calculated than any of us could possibly know. He didn't get to where he is by having poor judgment, and just because we can see what the right hand is doing, doesn't mean we can always see what the left hand is also doing. Circus and bread my friend, circus and bread.

 

[TLDR20]

Trump also didn't get to where he was by being a genius. He started off pretty damn well, basically the definition of privilege. I think anyone on here if given what he was given to start would be pretty well off.

 

[Brill]

I think the 'Donald' is far more calculated than any of us could possibly know. He didn't get to where he is by having poor judgment, and just because we can see what the right hand is doing, doesn't mean we can always see what the left hand is also doing. Circus and bread my friend, circus and bread.

If that right hand is Clinton's, I think you're right. His verbal assault against the GOP seriously just handed the White House to a Democrat (hopefully Hillary will recuse herself due to criminal charges but that's wishful justice). There is absolutely ZERO to be gained by alienating the average Joe GOP supporter. Sure Trump got 13 million votes in the primary:Romney LOST the election with 60 million votes.

I think the election is too important to be left to the hands of common Americans. The game is rigged and there is no chance that Wall Street would allow a wildcard to affect their addiction of YOUR labor. Americans, buy more shit that will break so you have to buy more shit and get a bigger house or get a storage unit! Take a vacation and get a new car because you deserve it! Put in all on credit and pay it off later.

Bill has already caused Viagra to quadruple in price because of supply shortages. Like his interns, we're fucked. I'm taking my sailboat South.

#unlock the nomination thread!

 

[DocIllinois]

I think the 'Donald' is far more calculated than any of us could possibly know. He didn't get to where he is by having poor judgment, and just because we can see what the right hand is doing, doesn't mean we can always see what the left hand is also doing. Circus and bread my friend, circus and bread.

This describes the activities of any high level American politician or those impersonating one.

DJT is doing us the novel favor of giving a WARNO about the horrendous train wreck we'll be getting if he's elected, though. I'll give him that.

Thanks, Donnie!

 

[Salt USMC]

This article from the American Conservative takes an insightful, nuanced look at gun arguments coming from both sides of the spectrum, and adroitly problematizes them. A good read if you take the time to fully digest his arguments

A Good Guy With a Gun Runs, Too

After every mass shooting in the U.S. you hear the same arguments from the same people. One group blames lax gun laws. The other group says more guns equal less crime. These are polarized positions to say the least.

Gun access aside, last week’s shooting in Orlando is vastly more complex than it originally appeared. Evidence continues to build that the shooter, Omar Mateen, while definitely a Muslim, was also gay. Presumably a self-loathing one. Meanwhile,there’s no evidence he’d ever been in contact with ISIS. This complicates the simple portrayal of a jihadist and serves nobody’s purpose, although it does seem to be getting progressively more play. The media initially consistently misidentified his rifle, repeatedly claiming it was the highly-popular AR-15 when it’s actually a weapon that bears no semblance to the sibling of the military M-16. So they changed the wording to “AR-15 style,” which isn’t true either. They wanted continuity between this massacre and earlier ones that did use the AR-15—and they “found” it.