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.
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.
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?
I might steal this. I'll give you credit, though, as "I saw someone else post this...".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.
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.
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.
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?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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?