Trump’s National Security Adviser: Avoid Phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism

McMaster told staff members that the phrase blames “an entire religion” so “he’s not on board,” someone who participated in the meeting told the Guardian.

Oh someone said he said it so it must be true.... Come on guys.. Arent we all getting tired of this crap?

 

If someone using the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" is enough to to make you turn to radical Islamic terrorism...

Then you're EXACTLY the moderate Muslim we are looking for.

 

B-B-But if it's leftist generated political propaganda rumor substituting as factual information then it MUST be true! After all it is a proven fact that Hillary Clinton is now president. Just ask any foaming at the brain pan leftist about that and he or she will HOWL that Hillary WON the popular vote and so that really she is the president.

 

Even if it is true who cares? Or do people think all Presidents surround themselves with mindless lemmings? I would think different opinions would be valuable.

 

I agree. It's a non issue, because almost certainly Trump himself will get around to declaring it when the time is appropriate. We are going to be attacked again. That's a certainty. As for its importance; it's merely symbolic acceptance of reality. The previous administration point blank refused to accept reality in that regard. We shall have to see what this one does after the Allah hits the Akbar -- or however that goes.

 

If you call getting whipped in elections like the slaves you once fought a war to keep, "doing fine," then by all means keep up the good work.

 

To be fair, please tell us how you disagree with them.

 

All generalizations break down when applied to individuals.
It's a basic flaw in any bipartisan rhetoric.

 

No thank you. The thread topic is not comparison of my political philosophies juxtaposed against a binary party system.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that too.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that too.

 

Can we go back to “War on Terror” now?

“Rape is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the selective breeding of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigview Brznutski, Obama supporter)
(Terrorized by 'War on Rape' - Washingtonpurplethrobbingpost) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

Personally, I still like the word "Islamifascist," because they do not have to use terrorism to ethnically cleanse their territory of those who are not of the book.

 

The phrase is entirely accurate for a significant and large minority of those who practice Islam. Just like any religion, the majority just want to be left alone and only give lip service to religious teachings. But Islam is dominated by a very large majority of religious clergy that actually support "radical Islamic terrorism" and do everything in their power to convince their flocks that Islam is in a justifiable war with the West and that democracy is an evil system that should be destroyed everywhere, That fact should be communicated everywhere and constantly if democracy has any change in defeating this fascist group of Islamic clerics.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. Do you ever read any Arab newspapers?

 

This is precisely what happens when these rare occurrences happen. What's your point?

 

Big eye roll here.....Unlike Muslim fanaticism drone strikes are not made in the name of Christianity nor to advance the cause of Christianity at all.
I'd normally say nice try, but your "logic" here is forced and false and quite asinine and there is something wrong with a group of people who kill and conquer
to advance their religion and you'd have to jump in a time machine and go back to the Crusades to see Christendom fight wars to hypocritically kill and maim
in the name of their beliefs (even though in a historical context the Crusades were a response to 300 years of Muslim subjugation of Christian
lands and shrines in the region and therefore a defensive strike, not one of conquest which is how Islam was spread from it's roots).

Because the Bush/Obama doctrine of never linking radical Islam to terrorism (pretending these very angry killers all from the Middle East are killing and raping for no
reason at all?) has worked so well up to now.

 

The point wasn't whether drone strikes are christian terrorism but rather how the phrase islamic terrorism sounds to moderate muslims. It wouldn't have to be a perfect analogy for you to understand why framing it as radical islamic terrorism is counterproductive. Another reason the logic works is because that is how it is perceived, or at the very least anti-muslim terrorism if not christian, but Bush absolutely framed it as a good vs evil thing and the presidents have all been christian. When it comes to diplomacy, it's the perception that matters.

Terrorism has been exacerbated by our meddling in the middle east, which includes accidently killing innocent people while we try to kill terrorists. Thereby creating more terrorists. While not intervening in the middle east would have helped and will help again once ISIS is destroyed, our alliance with Israel will continue to cause some problems. But the solution is security, not war.

 

I re-read it and you are correct.

 

If terrorism in the Middle East were just termed Islamic terrorism I would concede the point. It isn't just any Muslim, however, who is killing and bombing and beheading people (other Muslims for instance)! It is radical fundamentalist Islam that is doing these things and it is addressed just in that very way.

If the Muslim psyche is so fragile that it cannot bear to hear that it's unhinged fundamentalist brethren are to blame for things like the ISIS army then
perhaps that is part of the problem. When a Christian fundamentalist nut case commits some horrid crime (like bombing an abortion clinic) no
Christian is upset that it has been reported as such because indeed a Christian fundamentalist lunatic DID commit a heinous crime ...and that's how it is
reported. And no true Christian is upset at the way the killer is identified, as a Christian radical, because no true Christian would profane his or her religion
by using dynamite or a gun to deal with people that offend his sensibilities.

So I have to wonder what it is about the religion of Islam itself that causes it's adherents to shrink away from any suggestion that it's more radical followers
might do something horrifically evil and cruel and why they would be offended at a chance to distinguish themselves as civilized people from the other members of their religion who, by their own deeds and actions, have proven they are not!

But maybe this never occurs to the "diplomat" who never stops to think about the negative long term effects of pretending the elephant in the room does not exist and if it's never talked about it might go away (though this has never ever happened when evil is ignored in the history of human experience).

Would you like to throw over Israel to it's hostile neighbors just to pacify them? I'm sure many would. That solves very little as bullies do not go away when they are placated. They come back for more and more.

Perhaps if Islam, as a whole, would come to grips with the problems inherent in a religion that deals with others by subjugating them (whether through warfare
or by treating others like subservients to be taxed as a precondition to their survival) then they wouldn't be so concerned that radical Muslim fundamentalists
are indeed addressed and identified as radical Muslim fundamentalists when when another bomb goes off in a crowd of innocents or another head is put on a chopping block or a woman raped because she has it coming as a non Muslim who didn't feel the need to war a hajib as a free human being.

 

terrorists probably dont care what you call them. They are perfectly fine committing atrocities under any label. What is acceptable- murderers? International criminal psychopaths? Really, what should we call it? Given that the word ISLAM is in ISIS

 

What are the negative consequences of not using the term radical Islamic terrorist? Is there some tactic or strategy we're missing out on by not being as abrasive as possible? I don't see the upside of that at all, other than assigning blame to a religion. And don't get me wrong, I do hate religion... all of them and especially Islam. But if our goal is to reduce or stop terrorism, calling it radical islamic terrorism does nothing to further that goal. Not calling it that helps us get allies by making the point that we do not believe the extremists are true to the islamic religion.

Israel is a difficult problem. It should not have been reestablished in the first place and doing so was a major mistake on the part of jews, Britain, and the UN. But what should America do now? Treat them like any other country.

I often wish dumb people would stop being idiots too, but when it comes to making policy, we should assume that people will be dumb.

 

I like to turn the issue around and ask what is the downside of properly identifying who the people are that bomb and behead?

It's not as though all through the Bush/Obama years the official American message has not been these are not Muslims that fill the ranks of Al Qaeda and ISIS because Muslims would not do such a thing (despite all evidence to the contrary and the claims of the terrorists themselves). Have their transparent denials
saved one single innocent's life from the gun, bomb and sword? Not that anyone can see, no. It has not!

McMasters is just more of the same old same old and I don't see any good that comes of diplomatic pablum that mollifies and coddles members of a religion
who, through every national opinion poll taken, are a vital part of the problem because they support the more draconian aspects of Shariah law and the clerics
that spout that nonsense. The provide the base on which terrorism rests (though tolerance for terrorism itself in the Muslim world is losing favor slowly).

Some people see the problem in sugar coating the truth. https://www.samharris.org/books/islam-and-the-future-of-tolerance

The Jews deserve a place of their own just all their enemies possess and I can't agree with you there.

Islam needs a reformation as Christianity and Judaism have gone through but I fear that process will take many generations to occur.