Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

Lieberman: Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest, 'Offensive'

FOXNews.com

Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed the Obama administration Sunday for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" from a key national security document, calling the move dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists.

The Connecticut independent revealed that he wrote a letter Friday to top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan urging the administration to "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the United States. He wrote that failing to identify "violent Islamist extremism" as the enemy is "offensive."

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.

"Unless we're honest about that, we're not going to be able to defeat this enemy," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday." "It's absolutely Orwellian and counterproductive to the fight that we're fighting."

 

[timschochet]

While I tend to agree with the article if true, I'd like to read for myself what the report says. On the one hand, it's important to be honest. On the other hand, it's also important not to overgeneralize.

 

[Guest]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

 

[Chadstroma]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Now you know how we feel about your posts.

 

[Da Guru]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Anti-Semite are you?

 

[jonessed]

I don't mind playing the PC game for some things, but national security policy shouldn't be one of them. This is one area we really just need to call a spade and spade and tackle the problem in its entirety.

 

[Chadstroma]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Anti-Semite are you?

No, he just hates anyone seen as a traitor to his cause.

 

[Guest]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Anti-Semite are you?

No, he just hates anyone seen as a traitor to his cause.

I was a huge fan of Paul Wellstone.

 

[LHUCKS]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

 

[Chadstroma]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Anti-Semite are you?

No, he just hates anyone seen as a traitor to his cause.

I was a huge fan of Paul Wellstone.

If memory serves me well, Paul was an extremely liberal Democrat. I am not following you here.

 

[Guest]

I find everything that Joe Lieberman says to be dishonest and offensive.

Anti-Semite are you?

No, he just hates anyone seen as a traitor to his cause.

I was a huge fan of Paul Wellstone.

If memory serves me well, Paul was an extremely liberal Democrat. I am not following you here.

I'm supporting your point.I'm not anti-semitic, I'm pro-progressive. Although I will throw in that Lieberman has been a boil on the seat of the Democrats for the past 5 years. It's not just his policy viewpoints which I disagree with; it's his overall and consistent dooshery.

 

[Chadstroma]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

So, objectively, the terrorists we are fighting in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc. are not Islamic extremists?

 

[Chadstroma]

I'm supporting your point.I'm not anti-semitic, I'm pro-progressive. Although I will throw in that Lieberman has been a boil on the seat of the Democrats for the past 5 years. It's not just his policy viewpoints which I disagree with; it's his overall and consistent dooshery.

Oh, gotcha, proof against being an anti-Semite. Heck, I am sure you are a fan of Rahm. You could have gone with him and saved me from searching my archaic memory trying to figure out what you were saying with Paul. And as for Lieberman His dooshery is that you disagree with him and that he has the nerve to break with on issues and finally leave the Democratic party.

 

[Guest]

Although re: the OP, I don't see how Lieberman can even be consistent here.

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.

So if anyone wants to defend Lieberman here, my reading of this is that the strategy document removes all references to religious beliefs but Lieberman believes that is going to inflame the Muslim world because he believes they want to see terrorists referred to as Islamic extremists? Assumedly, they would just be called extremists or terrorists now?

 

[LHUCKS]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

So, objectively, the terrorists we are fighting in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc. are not Islamic extremists?

Do we label those bombing abortion clinics "Christian Terrorists?"

 

[Guest]

I'm supporting your point.I'm not anti-semitic, I'm pro-progressive. Although I will throw in that Lieberman has been a boil on the seat of the Democrats for the past 5 years. It's not just his policy viewpoints which I disagree with; it's his overall and consistent dooshery.

Oh, gotcha, proof against being an anti-Semite. Heck, I am sure you are a fan of Rahm. You could have gone with him and saved me from searching my archaic memory trying to figure out what you were saying with Paul. And as for Lieberman His dooshery is that you disagree with him and that he has the nerve to break with on issues and finally leave the Democratic party.

I would've felt better about him if he had broken with the Democrats, quite honestly. Instead, he campaigned under the promise that he would caucus with Democrats, even though he's technically an Independent, and the Republicans ran out someone that was the one Republican candidate that year that George Bush, as the sitting President, did not officially endorse. And yet, whenever the Democrats actually need anything, Lieberman hems and haws and says he's not sure and we all need to be brilliant and reasonable bi-partisans like him.There's conservatives that I respect. And there's areas of broad agreement that I can find with them. But just label yourself what you are. That's all.Not sure what I think about Rahm. I didn't know much about him before he became the Chief of Staff and all I know about him since is that he plays hardball with lots of expletives. Even if the DNC needs that on occasion, it still doesn't put him onto my Christmas card list.ETA: Also, even in the last election, Lieberman only left the Democratic party once he was thrown out. He lost in the primary to Ned Lamont and then formed his Independent party, "Connecticut for Lieberman" running, as I said, promising to caucus with the Democrats. So he tried to ride the Democratic coattails on Election Day and has been a pain to them ever since.

 

[Chadstroma]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

So, objectively, the terrorists we are fighting in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc. are not Islamic extremists?

Do we label those bombing abortion clinics "Christian Terrorists?"

I think the term actually used most often is Christian Fundamentalists. Further, when talking about a group such as Aryan Nation, the term 'Christian Identity Group' is most often used with accuracy to describe them. Those groups are no more representative of Christianity than al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc are of Islam. Anyone that is educated about comparative religions and understands the teachings of authentic Christianity/Islam versus the extreme nature of the teachings of al-Qaeda or Aryan Nation. Why is it important? Well, I could not say it better than Sun Tzu did:

So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

 

[jon_mx]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

So, objectively, the terrorists we are fighting in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc. are not Islamic extremists?

Do we label those bombing abortion clinics "Christian Terrorists?"

They will be. The PC spin takes time, but that is the direction this is headed.

 

[Chadstroma]

Although re: the OP, I don't see how Lieberman can even be consistent here.

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.

So if anyone wants to defend Lieberman here, my reading of this is that the strategy document removes all references to religious beliefs but Lieberman believes that is going to inflame the Muslim world because he believes they want to see terrorists referred to as Islamic extremists? Assumedly, they would just be called extremists or terrorists now?

See my response to LHUCKS. As a Christian, I am not offended by someone calling a whack job that blows up abortion clinics a 'Christian fundamentalist'. I am offended by the whack job who does that in the name of my faith while believing something that is no where near being close to my faith. For the most part, Christians do denounce these extremists and give them no empathy or support. If Muslims did the same, then this world would be much better off and we could pack up and go home from places like Afghanistan.

 

[Chadstroma]

I'm supporting your point.I'm not anti-semitic, I'm pro-progressive. Although I will throw in that Lieberman has been a boil on the seat of the Democrats for the past 5 years. It's not just his policy viewpoints which I disagree with; it's his overall and consistent dooshery.

Oh, gotcha, proof against being an anti-Semite. Heck, I am sure you are a fan of Rahm. You could have gone with him and saved me from searching my archaic memory trying to figure out what you were saying with Paul. And as for Lieberman His dooshery is that you disagree with him and that he has the nerve to break with on issues and finally leave the Democratic party.

I would've felt better about him if he had broken with the Democrats, quite honestly. Instead, he campaigned under the promise that he would caucus with Democrats, even though he's technically an Independent, and the Republicans ran out someone that was the one Republican candidate that year that George Bush, as the sitting President, did not officially endorse. And yet, whenever the Democrats actually need anything, Lieberman hems and haws and says he's not sure and we all need to be brilliant and reasonable bi-partisans like him.There's conservatives that I respect. And there's areas of broad agreement that I can find with them. But just label yourself what you are. That's all.Not sure what I think about Rahm. I didn't know much about him before he became the Chief of Staff and all I know about him since is that he plays hardball with lots of expletives. Even if the DNC needs that on occasion, it still doesn't put him onto my Christmas card list.

So, once more, his dooshery is that you disagree with him and that he does not fall in line with the Democrats when called upon like other lapdogs of the DNC.

 

[Offa]

This is a talking points issue of little substance. People should get over it.

 

[LHUCKS]

If Muslims did the same

Uhhh...they do. They're just not as well organized and politically savvy about it due to several factors.

 

[Chadstroma]

If Muslims did the same

Uhhh...they do. They're just not as well organized and politically savvy about it due to several factors.

Uhhh...no, they do not. There is a lot of empathy and sometimes even downright support of the more extreme elements within Islam. It is also much more powerful and invasive than it is within Christendom and the reason for that has been the lack of the 'moderates' in standing out against the extremists. Now, mind you, I am not talking about American Muslims here but Muslims as a whole throughout the world. Let me give you some picture drawing to explain what I am saying here. When some whack job blows up an abortion clinic, most Christians are appalled and condemn the act without any if's, and's or but's. When some whack job blows up a bus full of Israeli's, they often will point out the evils of Israel before they even get around to saying how they do not condone violence. I will never forget the video of Palestinians dancing the streets by the hundreds on 9/11. I did not see any dancing in the streets when that abortion doctor was killed. That is what I am talking about. That is a difference and a clear and real one.

 

[LHUCKS]

Uhhh...no, they do not. There is a lot of empathy and sometimes even downright support of the more extreme elements within Islam. It is also much more powerful and invasive than it is within Christendom and the reason for that has been the lack of the 'moderates' in standing out against the extremists. Now, mind you, I am not talking about American Muslims here but Muslims as a whole throughout the world.

we're gonna have to agree to disagree...you are showing you know next to nothing about Islamic and Middle Eastern Culture.I'm embarrassed for you, but you're not unlike most Americans so I'm not surprised either.Americans and their antil-Muslim sentiment are a joke to the rest of the world.Australians, Chinese, English....everywhere you go people laugh at us for our ignorance and it's well deserved.Some of the posts in this thread are perfect examples.

 

[Offa]

Uhhh...no, they do not. There is a lot of empathy and sometimes even downright support of the more extreme elements within Islam. It is also much more powerful and invasive than it is within Christendom and the reason for that has been the lack of the 'moderates' in standing out against the extremists. Now, mind you, I am not talking about American Muslims here but Muslims as a whole throughout the world.

Excuse me? You come from a country that supported and funded Catholic Christian terrorism in my country for decades. British soldiers and innocent civilians died because the Irish-American community and the US government was unwillng to stop helping the IRA. What gives you the gall to chide other countries for their supposed support of terrorism? Can you name one Islamic country other than Palestine when terrorists have a popular base or are in government? I can name one Christian one: Northern Ireland.

 

[Paranoia]

Reza Aslan - How to win a Cosmic War

Aslan is a professor and author of Iranian descent and is has appeared on several episodes of the Daily Show if your interested.

The decision to revise the language we use when describing our enemies is strategically beneficial in the effort to win hearts and minds. Inclusion of the term "Islamic" lends credibility to a larger, "cosmic" recruiting tool espoused by our enemies. A War on Terror is not confined to acts committed by one sub group, in this case Islamic Extremists. The language change proposals remove legitimization of the notion that America is the Christian nation coming to destroy Islam.

Furthermore, Joe seems to be going to great lengths to convince himself that real muslims wish to have their faith be related to extreme perversions of Islam that use violence prey on the depressed and oppressed . The decision to change this language is well thought out strategy that better defines the War on Terrorand helps deplete enemy recruitment at no cost.

 

[LHUCKS]

Uhhh...no, they do not. There is a lot of empathy and sometimes even downright support of the more extreme elements within Islam. It is also much more powerful and invasive than it is within Christendom and the reason for that has been the lack of the 'moderates' in standing out against the extremists. Now, mind you, I am not talking about American Muslims here but Muslims as a whole throughout the world.

Excuse me? You come from a country that supported and funded Catholic Christian terrorism in my country for decades. British soldiers and innocent civilians died because the Irish-American community and the US government was unwillng to stop helping the IRA. What gives you the gall to chide other countries for their supposed support of terrorism? Can you name one Islamic country other than Palestine when terrorists have a popular base or are in government? I can name one Christian one: Northern Ireland.

Americans are so blinded it's embarrassing.

 

[LHUCKS]

Reza Aslan - How to win a Cosmic War

Aslan is a professor and author of Iranian descent and is has appeared on several episodes of the Daily Show if your interested.

The decision to revise the language we use when describing our enemies is strategically beneficial in the effort to win hearts and minds. Inclusion of the term "Islamic" lends credibility to a larger, "cosmic" recruiting tool espoused by our enemies. A War on Terror is not confined to acts committed by one sub group, in this case Islamic Extremists. The language change proposals remove legitimization of the notion that America is the Christian nation coming to destroy Islam.

Furthermore, Joe seems to be going to great lengths to convince himself that real muslims wish to have their faith be related to extreme perversions of Islam that use violence prey on the depressed and oppressed . The decision to change this language is well thought out strategy that better defines the War on Terrorand helps deplete enemy recruitment at no cost.

Anybody who knows anything about the Middle East and Islam knows this...they feel constantly threatened by Christianity and Western countries...likely due to the result of thousands of years of war.

Americans are complete idiots when it comes to understanding the region...I probably would be too had I not taken several "Near Eastern Studes" courses in college.

That being said, if I was Christian and all of my education and information came from Western media sources I would probably think like Chadstroma too.

 

[Offa]

Agreed LHUCKS. I don't think there is any problem whatsoever with the average muslim's attitude to terrorism. If you know about the nitty gritty of how the Islamic State of Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan set themselves up it's pretty shocking, they come in and brutally murder anyone who opposes them because their base of support is so tiny. After the 2005 Amman hotel bombings in Jordan even al Zaqarwi's family disowned him, and that's a pretty big statement in such a family-orientated society. How many votes did Al Qaeda or other pro-terrorist groups get in the recent Iraqi elections? Just about the only ones you could define as even slightly pro-terror, the Sadrist lists, got slaughtered by the more nationalist moderate State of Law coalition. Islamic extremist insurgents only get support in areas where there is no alternative that can provide law and order and other governance.

I think it's pretty insulting to the people who are terrorised the most by so-called "Islamic" terrorists to say that they aren't doing enough.

 

[LHUCKS]

Islamic extremist insurgents only get support in areas where there is no alternative that can provide law and order and other governance.

For the most part this is accurate, a few minor exceptions...Iran is rumored to be supporting insurgents for example.

 

[RCon]

Uhhh...no, they do not. There is a lot of empathy and sometimes even downright support of the more extreme elements within Islam. It is also much more powerful and invasive than it is within Christendom and the reason for that has been the lack of the 'moderates' in standing out against the extremists. Now, mind you, I am not talking about American Muslims here but Muslims as a whole throughout the world.

Excuse me? You come from a country that supported and funded Catholic Christian terrorism in my country for decades. British soldiers and innocent civilians died because the Irish-American community and the US government was unwillng to stop helping the IRA. What gives you the gall to chide other countries for their supposed support of terrorism? Can you name one Islamic country other than Palestine when terrorists have a popular base or are in government? I can name one Christian one: Northern Ireland.

IranSyriaSaudi ArabiaLibya (reformed?)Lebanon

 

[Offa]

Islamic extremist insurgents only get support in areas where there is no alternative that can provide law and order and other governance.

For the most part this is accurate, a few minor exceptions...Iran is rumored to be supporting insurgents for example.

Yeah, Iran does continue to support Al Qaeda and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan through the Quds Force. But I don't think you can say either the Iranian government or Al Qaeda have a popular base of support among the Iranian people.

 

[Offa]

IranSyriaSaudi ArabiaLibya (reformed?)Lebanon

Yeah, I suppose I shouldn't have said "government", but I wanted to get in the shot about Northern Ireland. Of the countries you've named, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Libya don't support terrorism. Syria does, but it's a totalitarian dictatorship so we can't infer any popular support there. I'll concede Lebanon, Hezbollah do have a great deal of popular support (especially after the Israeli invasion in 2006), but the point I'd raise with them and all other popular Islamic terrorist groups is that they oppose Israel, not the United States, and they're hardly indicative of the Islamic world's popular support for terrorism at all.

 

[Jewell]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

So, objectively, the terrorists we are fighting in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Sayyaf, etc. are not Islamic extremists?

Do we label those bombing abortion clinics "Christian Terrorists?"

They will be. The PC spin takes time, but that is the direction this is headed.

I'm not sure I get this. Are you saying that it's going to take awhile for political correctness to go away before we rightly call abortion clinic bombers Christian Terrorists? Or are you saying that once political correctness takes hold, abortion clinic bombers will eventually be labeled Christian Terrorists?You seem to be suggesting the latter, but I'm not sure if that makes sense. Why would it be poltically correct for Obama not to acknowledge the Muslim faith of terrorists, but it would also be politically correct to specifically point out the Christian faith of abortion clinic bombers. Seems contradictory. I'm completely with Liebermann here (who I ordinarily think is a putz). I just never understood the concept of collectively lying to ourselves as a society. We have an enemy. We know who they are. Why not just say it?

 

[timschochet]

Like our GB Timschochet...Liebermann is completely incapable of objectivity on this topic.

And once again LHUCKS makes the insinuation that someone from a Jewish background is unable to use reason or an open mind when it comes to discussing the subject of Islam. And again, I have to say that I find this slightly anti-Semitic. To be bigoted is to link people together by background and ascribe a flaw to them- in this case, the flaw that LHUCKS is ascribing is the lack of reason. For those who want to know how I feel about Lieberman's comments, you can read the second post in this thread. Lieberman is a guy whom I agree with sometimes, and often disagree with, especially on this subject. But LHUCKS, you needn't bother to read that post; I doubt it will affect your state of ignorance, so why bother?

 

[Two Deep]

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

 

[Desert_Power]

Although re: the OP, I don't see how Lieberman can even be consistent here.

The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.

So if anyone wants to defend Lieberman here, my reading of this is that the strategy document removes all references to religious beliefs but Lieberman believes that is going to inflame the Muslim world because he believes they want to see terrorists referred to as Islamic extremists? Assumedly, they would just be called extremists or terrorists now?

 

[perry147]

Imagine there's no countriesIt isn't hard to doNothing to kill or die forAnd no religion tooImagine all the peopleLiving life in peace...

 

[cosjobs]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

 

[Jewell]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

In your scenario the people besmirching the Baptist faith would be those Baptists killing abortion doctors in the name of their faith. The same applies for Muslim terrorists. Those killing innocent people in the name of Allah are doing a far greater job besmirching Islam than our media or our government reporting on it. Noting that individual incidents of terrorism are grounded in the terrorists' interpretation of Islam isn't besmirching, it's the truth.To extrapolate those actions to all Muslims would be besmirching. Or to use the terrorists actions to condemn Islam on the whole would be besmirching. Neither of those, however, are what's happening here.Look at it this way. Pretend that someone suffers from depression. Now pretend during a particularly bad depressive period the person went into work and shot up their office. Say the perpetrator left a note saying he was performing his atrocity because he felt particularly depressed. We have a definitive link between the atrocity and it's root. Should the media not report that the root of the problem in the particular case was depression because to do so might besmirch all those grappling with depression as potential murderers? Why the exemption for religion?

 

[LHUCKS]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

 

[Guest]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

In your scenario the people besmirching the Baptist faith would be those Baptists killing abortion doctors in the name of their faith. The same applies for Muslim terrorists. Those killing innocent people in the name of Allah are doing a far greater job besmirching Islam than our media or our government reporting on it. Noting that individual incidents of terrorism are grounded in the terrorists' interpretation of Islam isn't besmirching, it's the truth.To extrapolate those actions to all Muslims would be besmirching. Or to use the terrorists actions to condemn Islam on the whole would be besmirching. Neither of those, however, are what's happening here.Look at it this way. Pretend that someone suffers from depression. Now pretend during a particularly bad depressive period the person went into work and shot up their office. Say the perpetrator left a note saying he was performing his atrocity because he felt particularly depressed. We have a definitive link between the atrocity and it's root. Should the media not report that the root of the problem in the particular case was depression because to do so might besmirch all those grappling with depression as potential murderers? If not, why the exemption for religion?

As a general thesis, I agree with you here.In practice, however, I think this falls apart.Your point is, let's call a spade a spade. If something is an accurate portrayal of the situation, we only wound ourselves by pretending otherwise. Fair enough. However, given the relatively low number of Islamic radicals and the high number of Islamic non-radicals, we're also mischaracterizing the latter group in favor of the former. Someone holding onto a Koran so much as sneezes on a plane, and some concerned citizen is going to call the stewardess and have them land at the next airport, escorted by F-14s. At this point, the fact that some terrorists derive their motivation from Islam is not a mystery. The fact that billions don't, and in particular the one sitting next to you in a plane doesn't, seems to be a much greater enigma to people.Secondly, and relatedly, you always have a problem with causation. You can't ever know that depression caused your guy to go loco. There's always other triggers. And the reason that you don't throw up the headline, "Depression Caused Mass Murder" is because all of a sudden the millions of Americans who do have depression but are grappling with it and would never turn into a mass murderer would be treated as lepers.At the end of the day, what you lose in an over-generalization of a huge amount of people is much greater than what you gain in identifying this small amount of people in this fashion. Sorry if this rambled a little bit (or a lot) but I think you can catch the gist.As a sidebar, this wasn't even Lieberman's concern. He somehow thought that not labeling them as Islamic extremists would cause all the other Muslims to believe that the United States was on a war with Islam. Which just strikes me as non-sensical.

 

[Jewell]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

 

[Guest]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

 

[perry147]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?

How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

 

[Jewell]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

So the methodology behind each term is the same. Nearly all White Supremacists are white people who believe the white race is superior, and nearly all Muslim Terrorists are Muslims who believe that Islam is the superior religion.The difference, then, is only how each term is received. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that not all white people are supremacists upon hearing the term White Supremacist. So why is it difficult to reach a similar conclusion that not all Muslims are terrorists upon hearing the term Muslim Terrorist?

It seems that one of the reasons is the relative novelty of the term. White Supremacist has been in our vocabulary for awhile so we're used to it. The term Muslim Terrorist is still relatively new so we're uncomfortable with it. We should probably get used to it, though, because they're going to be around for awhile.

 

[Schlzm]

If they remove all things religious form the Strategy documention, can we please do the same with in theater RoE? Thanks.

Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

I think I agree with the intent of the re-wording.

By constantly linking a religion with a supremely negative word, the religion itself tends to start being interpreted negatively.

Say the guy who murdered an abortion doctor was a Baptist. And the press started labeling all those crazing as Baptist DOctor Killers. Imagine that term became as pervasive as IslamoFascists . Then you could see how the Baptist religion was being besmirched by it being relentlessly concatenated to a negative term.

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?

How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

 

[Guest]

So the methodology behind each term is the same. Nearly all White Supremacists are white people who believe the white race is superior, and nearly all Muslim Terrorists are Muslims who believe that Islam is the superior religion.The difference, then, is only how each term is received. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that not all white people are supremacists upon hearing the term White Supremacist. So why is it difficult to reach a similar conclusion that not all Muslims are terrorists upon hearing the term Muslim Terrorist?It seems that one of the reasons is the relative novelty of the term. White Supremacist has been in our vocabulary for awhile so we're used to it. The term Muslim Terrorist is still relatively new so we're uncomfortable with it. We should probably get used to it, though, because they're going to be around for awhile.

I'd agree with 99% of that and just add that an additional difference is that many Americans know enough white people to know that White Supremacist is not a common ideology. Many Americans don't know enough Muslims to really get a feel on how common Radical Islamists are. They may pay lip service, "Oh, I realize that it's a great religion being slandered by a few bad apples" but when it comes to personal comfort, sitting down next to someone in a plane, I don't think it's actually true.So newness of term and exposure to the demographic would be two of the primary differences.

 

[perry147]

Quick question for those taking this position -- Do you feel the same way about the term White Supremacist? If you feel differently, please let me know what the distinction is.

I would say the likelihood that someone looks at the [Demographic Identifier] and jumps to the negative connotation.

How about Crazy Lunatic?How about Compassionate Conservative?

How about bleeding heart liberal? Or just the word Liberal itself -it has been used as a quasi "curse word" lampooned by the hard right to characterize anyone with opposing viewpoint.

Also you could just look at your avatar or think about anything you have ever mentioned about Karl Rove, George Bush, **** Cheney, Gen. Petraeus, etc... to get the answer to the position you are attempting here.Schlzm

What have a said about Karl Rove, **** Cheney or Gen. Petraeus that even comes close to the way the word liberal is used by the hard right?