can "Islamic radicalism" ? No surprise,,,

[NOVA]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100407/D9EU2T1O1.html

President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counter-terrorism officials say.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

Of course Obama has new terms for terrorists these days.....tea party demonstrators, white militia, Christian fundamentalists, abortion protesters, etc.

 

[Cypress]

President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counter-terrorism officials say.

Good move. Nice to see we're moving away from the Bush era of caricaturing and demonizing muslims. Regardless of what Sean Hannity thinks, its just good strategy to be mindful and prudent of inflammatory rhetoric; i.e., rhetoric that might make wingnuts pump their fist in the air while watching the Glenn Beck show, but adds absolutely no value to our geopolitical objectives.

I wouldn't want the US government to use the term "islamic radicalism" with regard to a few thousand muslim criminals, anymore than I would want the US government to use the term "Christian Pedophelia" to caricature the catholic church. That kind of inflammatory rhetoric doesn't win any allies, it turns some people and erstwhile allies off; and the only people who feel some kind of validation from it are two-time Bush voters.

 

[Bonestorm]

Good move. Nice to see we're moving away from the Bush era of caricaturing and demonizing muslims. Regardless of what Sean Hannity thinks, its just good strategy to be mindful and prudent of inflammatory rhetoric; i.e., rhetoric that might make wingnuts pump their fist in the air while watching the Glenn Beck show, but adds absolutely no value to our geopolitical objectives.

I wouldn't want the US government to use the term "islamic radicalism" with regard to a few thousand muslim criminals, anymore than I would want the US government to use the term "Christian Pedophelia" to caricature the catholic church. That kind of inflammatory rhetoric doesn't win any allies, it turns some people and erstwhile allies off; and the only people who feel some kind of validation from it are two-time Bush voters.

Actually, this move is not all that dissimilar from that taken by the Bush administration in 2008 in its "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" issued by the National Counterterrorism Center to various federal agencies.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Good move. Nice to see we're moving away from the Bush era of caricaturing and demonizing muslims. Regardless of what Sean Hannity thinks, its just good strategy to be mindful and prudent of inflammatory rhetoric; i.e., rhetoric that might make wingnuts pump their fist in the air while watching the Glenn Beck show, but adds absolutely no value to our geopolitical objectives.

I wouldn't want the US government to use the term "islamic radicalism" with regard to a few thousand muslim criminals, anymore than I would want the US government to use the term "Christian Pedophelia" to caricature the catholic church. That kind of inflammatory rhetoric doesn't win any allies, it turns some people and erstwhile allies off; and the only people who feel some kind of validation from it are two-time Bush voters.

but the caricature and demonization of TEA party members and militia is just fine with you, right?

 

[cawacko]

Actually, this move is not all that dissimilar from that taken by the Bush administration in 2008 in its "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" issued by the National Counterterrorism Center to various federal agencies.

Seriously Dungheap, you must either work for a politician, or in politics, or you might qualify as the biggest political junkie on the planet to know that information.

 

[Cypress]

Actually, this move is not all that dissimilar from that taken by the Bush administration in 2008 in its "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication" issued by the National Counterterrorism Center to various federal agencies.

Good call. I think towards the end of the Bush regime, some of the smarter people in the administration began to realize that their testosterone-drive rhetoric was doing more harm than good (i.e., "Old Europe", "Axis of Evil", "Islamo-fascism"). I think that's ultimately why they Put General Patreus in Iraq. That dude knows how important it is to respect muslim customs, respect their moral codes, and to win hearts and minds, rather than just blowing shit up. And to an extent, it paid off.

 

[Cypress]

but the caricature and demonization of TEA party members and militia is just fine with you, right?

I'm just some dude f*cking around on a message board for entertainment. I doubt less than ten people ever read my crap.

Are you suggesting anonymous message board poster Cypress, is required to adhere to the policy goals and geopolitical standards of the United States Government?

That's some good shit your smoking, bro'

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm just some dude f*cking around on a message board for entertainment. I doubt less than ten people ever read my crap.

Are you suggesting anonymous message board poster Cypress, is required to adhere to the policy goals and geopolitical standards of the United States Government?

That's some good shit your smoking, bro'

dude, you have 12k followers on twitter. I set you up, you're welcome.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm just some dude f*cking around on a message board for entertainment. I doubt less than ten people ever read my crap.

Are you suggesting anonymous message board poster Cypress, is required to adhere to the policy goals and geopolitical standards of the United States Government?

That's some good shit your smoking, bro'

yet you don't seem to object when your masters do the same thing in a much larger forum.... I wonder why?

Oh that's right... because no matter what your masters do... it is all goooood.

 

[Onceler]

I'm lost; how did the TEA group get mixed up in this conversation?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm lost; how did the TEA group get mixed up in this conversation?

Not surprising that you are lost.

Bottom line, it was brought up as a comparison. Cypress mentioned that he didn't want muslims in general to be offended by associating the very small percentage of nutjobs claiming to be muslims who were going around committing acts of terrorism. A legitimate point by him.

The follow up question was why he was ok with associating the tea party movement with the relatively small minority of nutjobs that send the death threats etc... Or why he disparages the entire movement with his ignorant 'tea bagger' bullshit. That was a valid question to Cypress as it shows he has a double standard for groups he does not like.

 

[Onceler]

Not surprising that you are lost.

Bottom line, it was brought up as a comparison. Cypress mentioned that he didn't want muslims in general to be offended by associating the very small percentage of nutjobs claiming to be muslims who were going around committing acts of terrorism. A legitimate point by him.

The follow up question was why he was ok with associating the tea party movement with the relatively small minority of nutjobs that send the death threats etc... Or why he disparages the entire movement with his ignorant 'tea bagger' bullshit. That was a valid question to Cypress as it shows he has a double standard for groups he does not like.

Actually, that's a strawman. It's textbook strawman.

But have at it...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, that's a strawman. It's textbook strawman.

But have at it...

LMAO.... it is not a strawman dear lil Lorax. Just do a quick search on Cypress' use of the word teabagger and you will see numerous threads where he attempts to bash the whole tea party movement based on the actions of the radicals within the group. The very thing he states here in this thread (and he is right) that we should not do in the case of the extremists within the Muslim faith.

Now if you care to explain WHY you think my comments are a strawman, please do so and we can discuss. Otherwise you are simply trying to ignore the hypocrisy of his two positions.

 

[Onceler]

LMAO.... it is not a strawman dear lil Lorax. Just do a quick search on Cypress' use of the word teabagger and you will see numerous threads where he attempts to bash the whole tea party movement based on the actions of the radicals within the group. The very thing he states here in this thread (and he is right) that we should not do in the case of the extremists within the Muslim faith.

Now if you care to explain WHY you think my comments are a strawman, please do so and we can discuss. Otherwise you are simply trying to ignore the hypocrisy of his two positions.

How can you compare the TEA party to a religion like Islam? You don't think that's a bit ludicrous?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How can you compare the TEA party to a religion like Islam? You don't think that's a bit ludicrous?

1) I am not comparing the two to each other (THAT IS A STRAW MAN). I am in no way stating that the size of the two groups is important, nor is it important what the two groups represent.

2) I stated that taking the nuts in one group (TEA Party) and projecting their actions onto the entire group is hypocritical when stating that it is not right to associate the nuts in another group (Muslims) with the entire Muslim religion.

 

[Onceler]

1) I am not comparing the two to each other (THAT IS A STRAW MAN). I am in no way stating that the size of the two groups is important, nor is it important what the two groups represent.

2) I stated that taking the nuts in one group (TEA Party) and projecting their actions onto the entire group is hypocritical when stating that it is not right to associate the nuts in another group (Muslims) with the entire Muslim religion.

The only way this point has validity would be if the groups were similar in size, diversity, etc. To be a TEA nut, you have to adhere to a pretty specific political doctrine. You just don't want to face up to the fact that the TEA party is nothing more than disgruntled righties, and is based strictly on political ideology.

"Taxed enough already" - did regular working Americans taxes go up this past year, or down?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The only way this point has validity would be if the groups were similar in size, diversity, etc. To be a TEA nut, you have to adhere to a pretty specific political doctrine. You just don't want to face up to the fact that the TEA party is nothing more than disgruntled righties, and is based strictly on political ideology.

"Taxed enough already" - did regular working Americans taxes go up this past year, or down?

That is quite simply.... absurd.

Size of the group has NOTHING to do with it.

If you have less than one percent of a group acting in a radical manner, then it matters not if the group is made up of a 100k members or 2 billion. Projecting the actions of the radicals onto the group as a whole is still the same action, regardless of size.

You just want to play the role of tea party basher and thus want to pretend the action is somehow different. It is quite frankly.... pathetic.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The only way this point has validity would be if the groups were similar in size, diversity, etc. To be a TEA nut, you have to adhere to a pretty specific political doctrine. You just don't want to face up to the fact that the TEA party is nothing more than disgruntled righties, and is based strictly on political ideology.

"Taxed enough already" - did regular working Americans taxes go up this past year, or down?

Superfreak burnt you bad with this.

 

[Onceler]

That is quite simply.... absurd.

Size of the group has NOTHING to do with it.

If you have less than one percent of a group acting in a radical manner, then it matters not if the group is made up of a 100k members or 2 billion. Projecting the actions of the radicals onto the group as a whole is still the same action, regardless of size.

You just want to play the role of tea party basher and thus want to pretend the action is somehow different. It is quite frankly.... pathetic.

You didn't answer the question I posted, because you realize how incriminating it is for the "TEA party."

In order for a slogan to be "taxed enough already," one would normally assume an increase in taxes for most people.

And if it's just based on spending, where were they during the binge of the past 8 years? Oh, that's right - a Republican was in office then.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You didn't answer the question I posted, because you realize how incriminating it is for the "TEA party."

In order for a slogan to be "taxed enough already," one would normally assume an increase in taxes for most people.

And if it's just based on spending, where were they during the binge of the past 8 years? Oh, that's right - a Republican was in office then.

how did the topic come about to spending when the OP was about not branding an entire group for the actions of a few nuts?