• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Policy of "Radical Islamic Terrorism"

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I was listening to NPR this morning and heard from Adam Schiff, a California Congressman who sits on the Intelligence Committee, and he noted that he personally has no problem with the use of the label, but the question that remains for him is how does the use of this label change the response.

Many individuals on the right have criticized the President for his unwillingness to use the label "radical islamic terrorism." I want to set aside the discussion of whether the use of this label is proper or desired and I want to discuss the policy implications.

Put another way, if we have a President that declares the enemy to be "Radical Islamic Terrorism," how would the response of the federal government differ from the current administration? Is the sole argument something to the effect of "identifying the enemy allows us to defeat it?" Does the use of that term justify torturing the family members of terrorists or carpet bombing entire regions?

What else starts to change once we use and/or emphasize that phrase?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was listening to NPR this morning and heard from Adam Schiff, a California Congressman who sits on the Intelligence Committee, and he noted that he personally has no problem with the use of the label, but the question that remains for him is how does the use of this label change the response.

Many individuals on the right have criticized the President for his unwillingness to use the label "radical islamic terrorism." I want to set aside the discussion of whether the use of this label is proper or desired and I want to discuss the policy implications.

Put another way, if we have a President that declares the enemy to be "Radical Islamic Terrorism," how would the response of the federal government differ from the current administration? Is the sole argument something to the effect of "identifying the enemy allows us to defeat it?" Does the use of that term justify torturing the family members of terrorists or carpet bombing entire regions?

What else starts to change once we use and/or emphasize that phrase?

Before you can defend from and/or attack an enemy, you must recognize who that enemy is and what motivates them. That requires defining them, which includes using terminology that describes that definition - radical Islamic terrorism in this case. The goals, strategy, tactics, and methods of dealing with the threat flow from that basic point. Without it, failure is unavoidable.

We are at war. War can only be won if prosecuted with full force and effect to destroy the enemy and his ability to make war. Limited (or restricted) warfare is only preacceptance of defeat. Refusing to do those basic things such as defining the enemy and using the proper terminology is the first and most obvious step toward capitulation to the enemy - a conscious refusal to do what is required to win.

JMHO.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Before you can defend from and/or attack an enemy, you must recognize who that enemy is and what motivates them. That requires defining them, which includes using terminology that describes that definition - radical Islamic terrorism in this case. The goals, strategy, tactics, and methods of dealing with the threat flow from that basic point. Without it, failure is unavoidable.

We are at war. War can only be won if prosecuted with full force and effect to destroy the enemy and his ability to make war. Limited (or restricted) warfare is only preacceptance of defeat. Refusing to do those basic things such as defining the enemy and using the proper terminology is the first and most obvious step toward capitulation to the enemy - a conscious refusal to do what is required to win.

JMHO.

And I can appreciate the opinion, but you can't stop there. What is the result of identifying and labeling the enemy? How does that alter the response?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,861
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We are at war.

When was this war declared, and against whom?

Rightly or wrongly, identifiable targets would include those like the religious Taliban regime, the secular Hussein regime, or the Islamic State.

The perpetrator of the recent attack in Florida was US citizen, I believe; do you have a civil war going on? Are you at war with France or Belgium? A 'war on terror' or 'war on Islamic terror' is not an identifiable target at all. Maybe that's the point.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When was this war declared, and against whom?

Rightly or wrongly, identifiable targets would include those like the religious Taliban regime, the secular Hussein regime, or the Islamic State.

The perpetrator of the recent attack in Florida was US citizen, I believe; do you have a civil war going on? Are you at war with France or Belgium? A 'war on terror' or 'war on Islamic terror' is not an identifiable target at all. Maybe that's the point.

It was declared on 9/11/2001, by those that attacked our nation. However, it has been declared over and over again since then, and was declared even before 9/11/2001 by similar groups with the same cause and effect to our safety.

War does not require a nation to nation conflict.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And I can appreciate the opinion, but you can't stop there. What is the result of identifying and labeling the enemy? How does that alter the response?

We cannot fight what we cannot identify. Identification gives us breadth and scale, cause and source. Since we're not dealing with national geographical boundaries of a sovereign state, we have to define the ideological boundaries of the mental state that originates the threat to our nation and people.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
29,575
Reaction score
15,646
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We already know who the enemy is, and why they are killing hundreds of thousands of people.

They have a stone age cult type religion that does not now, or ever will mix with western style freedoms.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Before you can defend from and/or attack an enemy, you must recognize who that enemy is and what motivates them. That requires defining them, which includes using terminology that describes that definition - radical Islamic terrorism in this case. The goals, strategy, tactics, and methods of dealing with the threat flow from that basic point. Without it, failure is unavoidable.

We are at war. War can only be won if prosecuted with full force and effect to destroy the enemy and his ability to make war. Limited (or restricted) warfare is only preacceptance of defeat. Refusing to do those basic things such as defining the enemy and using the proper terminology is the first and most obvious step toward capitulation to the enemy - a conscious refusal to do what is required to win.

JMHO.
I might steal this. I'll give you credit, though, as "I saw someone else post this...".
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We cannot fight what we cannot identify. Identification gives us breadth and scale, cause and source. Since we're not dealing with national geographical boundaries of a sovereign state, we have to define the ideological boundaries of the mental state that originates the threat to our nation and people.

You are just really stuck on telling me why we need the change. I am setting aside that argument, even though I disagree.

I just want to know HOW the policy changes.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are just really stuck on telling me why we need the change. I am setting aside that argument, even though I disagree.

I just want to know HOW the policy changes.

I didn't say that you or we need to change anything. You asked me a question about why does it matter to us a term or terminology when referring to a real or potential enemy of our country and people. That's all I've done. If you feel that what I have defined and explained describes something that you seem to recognize as a needed or even if not needed, a change to our approach, then that's as I said, something you've recognized - without me saying such myself, or agreeing with you, or me even recognizing what you feel may need to change.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I didn't say that you or we need to change anything. You asked me a question about why does it matter to us a term or terminology when referring to a real or potential enemy of our country and people. That's all I've done. If you feel that what I have defined and explained describes

But I never asked you to explain why we need to change the labels. The point of this thread, from the beginning, has been to seek out a discussion from someone who can explain to me how the use of that term changes anything in terms of policy or response.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But I never asked you to explain why we need to change the labels. The point of this thread, from the beginning, has been to seek out a discussion from someone who can explain to me how the use of that term changes anything in terms of policy or response.

You quoted me before I was able to finish the post - you're a quick draw master it would appear.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
But I never asked you to explain why we need to change the labels. The point of this thread, from the beginning, has been to seek out a discussion from someone who can explain to me how the use of that term changes anything in terms of policy or response.
It's a two-way question, even though you didn't phrase it as such. In your opinion, how would it be a detriment if we used accurate phrasing? What would we lose?
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's a two-way question, even though you didn't phrase it as such. In your opinion, how would it be a detriment if we used accurate phrasing? What would we lose?

I would just echo the sentiments of Obama and others who worry about alienating and disenfranchising our muslim allies, both domestically and internationally.
 

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We already know who the enemy is, and why they are killing hundreds of thousands of people.

They have a stone age cult type religion that does not now, or ever will mix with western style freedoms.

Look at this absurd thread. This is why we're stuck in the mud on this issue, Democrats are debating whether we should even call an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist, after the largest terrorist attack since 9/11!

Imagine going to a McDonald's and trying to order a Big Mac, without being allowed to say the word "Big Mac".
You'd be laughed at, the same way Muslims are laughing at guys like Mr T for being a giant wimp on this issue.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,861
Reaction score
2,711
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Look at this absurd thread. This is why we're stuck in the mud on this issue, Democrats are debating whether we should even call an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist, after the largest terrorist attack since 9/11!

Imagine going to a McDonald's and trying to order a Big Mac, without being allowed to say the word "Big Mac".
You'd be laughed at, the same way Muslims are laughing at guys like Mr T for being a giant wimp on this issue.

Not really sure how I feel about various politicians' decisions to call or not to call such attacks Islamic terrorism, myself. To continue your analogy, the simple fact is that there are a lot of people out there who want to ban ALL burgers because Big Macs are terrible. So it's kind of understandable if more sensible people prefer to communicate to the public that what they are concerned about is terrible food, not just Big Macs and certainly not all burgers.

That said, I'm a pretty straightforward guy myself. Speak as I find and all that. So in general I'd say that we should be honest and bloody forthright enough to just call a spade a shovel!
 
Top Bottom