PDA

View Full Version : Obama O-bama says we are not at war with Islam


HonestChieffan
05-26-2010, 05:50 PM
Somebody needs to fill him in. They are at war with us. They have no problem identifying their enemy the evil infidels of America.


Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam-aide
26 May 2010 19:26:03 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Matt Spetalnick and Adam Entous
WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new national security strategy will make clear the United States is not at war with Islam, a top adviser said on Wednesday as the administration prepared for a formal break with Bush-era doctrine.

The White House on Thursday plans to roll out Obama's first formal declaration of national security goals, which are expected to deviate sharply from the go-it-alone approach of his predecessor that included justification for pre-emptive war.

Previewing parts of the document, John Brennan, Obama's leading counterterrorism adviser, said: "We have never been and will never be at war with Islam."
"The president's strategy is unequivocal with regard to our posture -- the United States of America is at war. We are at war against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates," he said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Brennan's words dovetailed with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, where former President George W. Bush alienated many with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and his use of phrases like "war on terror" and "Islamo-fascism."

At West Point on Saturday, Obama laid out the broad principles of his coming National Security Strategy, a document required by law of every administration, stressing international engagement over Bush's "cowboy diplomacy."

Grappling with a fragile U.S. economy and mounting deficits, Obama also signaled he would place new emphasis on the link between U.S. economic strength and discipline at home and restoring America's standing in the world.

Obama has been widely credited with improving the tone of U.S. foreign policy but is still struggling with unfinished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and sluggish Middle East peace efforts.
Critics say some of his efforts at diplomatic outreach show U.S. weakness.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THREAT
Brennan said curbing the growing threat of "homegrown" terrorism would be a top priority, along with boosting defenses against lone al Qaeda recruits who hold foreign passports that allow them to enter the United States with little to no screening.
This comes in the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner and the botched Times Square carbomb attempt earlier this month -- incidents Brennan called part of a "new phase" of the counterterrorism fight.
Obama's revised strategy is expected to implicitly repudiate the 2002 "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to wage pre-emptive war against countries and terrorist groups deemed a threat to the United States, part of a policy Bush called a "distinctly American internationalism."
What followed was the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq despite the lack of formal U.N. authorization.
But Brennan made clear there would be no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, saying the United States would need a broad campaign that "harnesses every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic."
"We will take the fight to al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates wherever they plot and train -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond," he said.
"We will not simply degrade al Qaeda's capabilities or simply prevent terrorist attacks against our country or citizens, we will not merely respond after the fact, after an attack that has been attempted," Brennan said.
"Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates," he said.

The Mad Crapper
05-26-2010, 05:53 PM
Oil spill, worst natural disaster in US History, 10% unemployment, Iran building a nuclear bomb, national debt 90% of GDP...

But no, this is what he wanted to put out today.

He's really got his priorities in order.

Hog Farmer
05-26-2010, 07:07 PM
We are at war with "Radical Islam"

HonestChieffan
05-26-2010, 09:09 PM
We are at war with "Radical Islam"

You are a very unfeeling and violent soul. Reach out and befriend a mullah.

go bowe
05-26-2010, 09:24 PM
We are at war with "Radical Islam"didn't holder say we're at war with a radical version of islam?

Warrior5
05-27-2010, 04:26 AM
didn't holder say we're at war with a radical version of islam?

The last time I saw Holder testifying, he couldn't even say "Islam".

healthpellets
05-27-2010, 08:53 AM
The last time I saw Holder testifying, he couldn't even say "Islam".

He finally said it...barely.

http://article.nationalreview.com/434231/nicking-our-public-discourse/mark-steyn

“In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam,” said Representative Smith. “Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?”

“Because of . . . ?”

“Radical Islam,” repeated Smith.

“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” replied Eric Holder noncommittally. “I think you have to look at each individual case.”

The congressman tried again. “Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people . . . ”

“But was radical Islam one of them?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people do things,” the attorney general said again. “Some of them are potentially religious . . . ” Stuff happens. Hard to say why.

“Okay,” said Smith. “But all I’m asking is if you think, among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.”

“You see, you say ‘radical Islam,’” objected Holder. “I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam that is not . . . ”

““Are you uncomfortable attributing any actions to radical Islam?” asked Smith. “It sounds like it.”

Amnorix
05-27-2010, 09:04 AM
We're not at war with Islam. The whole "Radical Islam" thing is just a bunch of political posturing. Couldn't care less about it.

healthpellets
05-27-2010, 09:53 AM
We're not at war with Islam.

i really hope you're wrong.

patteeu
05-27-2010, 10:02 AM
It's absolutely ridiculous that our leaders insist on sugar-coating the threat we face and white-washing the overwhelming religious connections. At the risk of referencing an over-used term, it's Orwellian. GWBush was pretty bad about this, but Obama is taking things to an absurd extreme with his counter-terrorism adviser (can we still call him that?), John Brennan, announcing yesterday that the administration will no longer use the terms "jihad" or "Islamist" when discussing the Overseas Contingency Operation (that's the horribly non-descriptive name that Obama gave to what had previously been known as the Global War on Terror, a weak name itself, but at least a somewhat descriptive one.)

Amnorix
05-27-2010, 12:39 PM
i really hope you're wrong.

errr....you want to be at war with, what, 30 countries and over a billion people? You want to be at war with the entire Middle East and their oil-owning countries?

How do you plan to win that war, exactly? Nuke everything from Morocco to India, then over to Indonesia?

WTF? :spock:

Amnorix
05-27-2010, 12:45 PM
It's absolutely ridiculous that our leaders insist on sugar-coating the threat we face and white-washing the overwhelming religious connections. At the risk of referencing an over-used term, it's Orwellian. GWBush was pretty bad about this, but Obama is taking things to an absurd extreme with his counter-terrorism adviser (can we still call him that?), John Brennan, announcing yesterday that the administration will no longer use the terms "jihad" or "Islamist" when discussing the Overseas Contingency Operation (that's the horribly non-descriptive name that Obama gave to what had previously been known as the Global War on Terror, a weak name itself, but at least a somewhat descriptive one.)

Can you please tell me what benefit is gained by saying we're at war with Islam?

I think part of the goal here is to not give tens of millions of impressionable youths across the Muslim world the idea that we're fighting the religion that they ardently adhere to, and that they, therefore, should join in a holy cause to defend their small and weak countries, or their fellow religious adherents, against the mighty nuclear armed, biggest army, navy and air force in the world, Americans. Right?

patteeu
05-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Can you please tell me what benefit is gained by saying we're at war with Islam?

I think part of the goal here is to not give tens of millions of impressionable youths across the Muslim world the idea that we're fighting the religion that they ardently adhere to, and that they, therefore, should join in a holy cause to defend their small and weak countries, or their fellow religious adherents, against the mighty nuclear armed, biggest army, navy and air force in the world, Americans. Right?

In World War II, did we avoid saying we were at war with Germany just because there were a lot of decent Germans in Germany and because, maybe more importantly, there were a lot of good, loyal Americans of German descent? Why not? Answer: Because it would have been stupid to avoid speaking the truth and clearly identifying our enemy so that we could all be on the same page. Having said that, we didn't say that we were at war with all people with German blood.

Very few people are suggesting that we use over-broad language like "at war with Islam". What I'm calling for is clarity about the fact that the people who are at war with us are largely guided by a radical and militant version of Islam (radical Islam). They fight a militant form of holy war in order to expand the area of control of their religion (militant Islamists waging violent jihad against the west). I have no problem with efforts to distinguish between peaceful, civilization-respecting muslims and those who take up arms against us, but we shouldn't shy away from honest, clear language about who we fight.

Edit: BTW, I don't have a problem with Obama saying we aren't at war with Islam (as the thread title is phrased). Unfortunately it goes way beyond that with the administration's decision to avoid words like jihad and Islamist and to create idiotic, sanitized names like Overseas Contingency Operation.

healthpellets
05-27-2010, 12:55 PM
errr....you want to be at war with, what, 30 countries and over a billion people? You want to be at war with the entire Middle East and their oil-owning countries?

How do you plan to win that war, exactly? Nuke everything from Morocco to India, then over to Indonesia?

WTF? :spock:

not in the way you state. i suppose nuking all those countries isn't realistic.

what i hope is two fold. 1) i hope that the higher reaches of our government maintaining a strict vigilance regarding the implementation of Sharia Law in this land. It should never be accepted for any reason under any circumstance.

2) i hope that there are at least discussions of assassinating the leaders of "radical Islam". since we can't destroy the beast, we can at least chop of its heads. an even better scenario would be the assassination of all leaders of Islam.

there is nothing we, the West, can do to appease the Muslims. Nothing. so there's no sense in trying. either we are infidels that should be killed, or we are Muslim. period.

Amnorix
05-27-2010, 04:11 PM
In World War II, did we avoid saying we were at war with Germany just because there were a lot of decent Germans in Germany and because, maybe more importantly, there were a lot of good, loyal Americans of German descent? Why not? Answer: Because it would have been stupid to avoid speaking the truth and clearly identifying our enemy so that we could all be on the same page. Having said that, we didn't say that we were at war with all people with German blood.

Yes, but Germany was a fixed defined place, and we were at war with the German nation. We were at war with their leaders, their army and their country.

Islam is a religion, philosophy, idea. One with many adherents only a small percentage of whom are our enemies.

It's a bit different.

Very few people are suggesting that we use over-broad language like "at war with Islam". What I'm calling for is clarity about the fact that the people who are at war with us are largely guided by a radical and militant version of Islam (radical Islam). They fight a militant form of holy war in order to expand the area of control of their religion (militant Islamists waging violent jihad against the west). I have no problem with efforts to distinguish between peaceful, civilization-respecting muslims and those who take up arms against us, but we shouldn't shy away from honest, clear language about who we fight.

Edit: BTW, I don't have a problem with Obama saying we aren't at war with Islam (as the thread title is phrased). Unfortunately it goes way beyond that with the administration's decision to avoid words like jihad and Islamist and to create idiotic, sanitized names like Overseas Contingency Operation.

I guess I don't see much/any upside to your approach to be honest, but I do see some potential downside in that it may aid the recruitment efforts of the enemies of our nation.

Amnorix
05-27-2010, 04:13 PM
there is nothing we, the West, can do to appease the Muslims. Nothing. so there's no sense in trying. either we are infidels that should be killed, or we are Muslim. period.

The Pope called from the Year 1150 and wants his ideas back.

go bowe
05-27-2010, 04:29 PM
The Pope called from the Year 1150 and wants his ideas back.LMAO LMAO LMAO

acesn8s
05-27-2010, 11:32 PM
i really hope you're wrong.

They are wrong! And after we are done with Islam, we are going after the Hindu, then the Buddhist, then the Jews because they are not like us! Kill'em all! Let God sort them out!

alnorth
05-27-2010, 11:50 PM
errr....you want to be at war with, what, 30 countries and over a billion people? You want to be at war with the entire Middle East and their oil-owning countries?

How do you plan to win that war, exactly? Nuke everything from Morocco to India, then over to Indonesia?

WTF? :spock:

That works as a general, overall response for me, so I'll just quote it. This thread is filled to the gills with commercial-strength purified stupid.

"war against Islam". That's like "war against Buddhists", or "war against asians".

I have to assume those who say "war against Islam" may mean something other than what those words actually mean. Some people may sneer at the qualification "radical Islamic terrorists" as somehow "weak", but that's got to be what they mean as well, or they are freaking insane.

How do you ethically justify the indiscriminate genocide of over a billion people in every nation all over the world? It's like solving a roach infestation in your apartment by burning and razing the city that apartment is located in all the way to the ground. You'd have to be some crazed comic-book villain to do that.

BIG K
05-28-2010, 12:00 AM
So who exactly has the Country been at war with for the last 8 years? Two wars offerring up about 90k troops on each battlefront.......Who then mR. pResident are our kids fighting against?

lostcause
05-28-2010, 01:06 AM
Can't we just outlaw ALL religions within US borders? I'd feel a lot better.

Dave Lane
05-28-2010, 01:17 AM
Can't we just outlaw ALL religions within US borders? I'd feel a lot better.

I'm with ya on this one. I don't want Sharia law or Christian law. I want commonsense law.

patteeu
05-28-2010, 07:54 AM
Yes, but Germany was a fixed defined place, and we were at war with the German nation. We were at war with their leaders, their army and their country.

Islam is a religion, philosophy, idea. One with many adherents only a small percentage of whom are our enemies.

It's a bit different.



I guess I don't see much/any upside to your approach to be honest, but I do see some potential downside in that it may aid the recruitment efforts of the enemies of our nation.

I don't think it's different in any important way.

As for the upside, it's been demonstrated in this forum repeatdedly when people at least act like they don't understand who our enemy is (eg is the IRA a target of the War on Terror?) or when they pretend the war isn't real (eg you can't have a war on a tactic) or when some people think our enemy is only the specific group that attacked us on 911 and therefore see Iraq as an incongruety. We need more unity of focus and the language we use has an effect on that. IMO, that's more important than leaving some muslims with a little confusion about how much of Islam we have a beef with (although we should continue to make efforts to be clear about that too).

King_Chief_Fan
05-28-2010, 08:22 AM
I'm with ya on this one. I don't want Sharia law or Christian law. I want commonsense law.

common sense law?ROFL

I have seen enouigh from posters on this board to determine there isn't much common sense.

Amnorix
05-28-2010, 08:31 AM
I don't think it's different in any important way.

As for the upside, it's been demonstrated in this forum repeatdedly when people at least act like they don't understand who our enemy is (eg is the IRA a target of the War on Terror?) or when they pretend the war isn't real (eg you can't have a war on a tactic) or when some people think our enemy is only the specific group that attacked us on 911 and therefore see Iraq as an incongruety. We need more unity of focus and the language we use has an effect on that. IMO, that's more important than leaving some muslims with a little confusion about how much of Islam we have a beef with (although we should continue to make efforts to be clear about that too).

Not much time for a big debate, but are you suggesting that Iraq was led by, or was a tool of, radical Islam?!?

modocsot
05-28-2010, 08:48 AM
Some folks on this board might benefit from reading "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

Dave Lane
05-28-2010, 08:56 AM
Some folks on this board might benefit from reading "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

Good book and it is the real problem with running an empire like we've done for the last 100 years.

Hydrae
05-28-2010, 09:26 AM
Not trying to channel BEP here but when did we declare war? I would love a link to any such declaration as passed by Congress.

patteeu
05-28-2010, 09:52 AM
Not much time for a big debate, but are you suggesting that Iraq was led by, or was a tool of, radical Islam?!?

Iraq used radical Islam as a tool (there are numerous examples of Saddam's collaborative activities with radical Islam, including cooperation with Egyptian Jihad which is a precursor to al Qaeda), encouraged it (by offering bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers among other things), and helped to cause it to continue to fester (by embracing the region-wide practice of oppressing his people).

The first two of those are the more important, IMO.

Saddam's antipathy toward the US and his willingness to use radical Islam to further his policy goals was a dangerous combination, especially when you add the expressed intent of al Qaeda to acquire WMD for use against the West and the verified interest of Saddam in developing WMD and ultimately nukes.

Saddam was seen by many as one of the biggest obstacles to peace between the Israelis and the palestinians. Peace may still be unattainable, but there isn't much doubt that he was a first class instigator, even if a strong case can be made for Iran/Syria/Hezbolah/Hamas being a bigger obstacle, IMO.

Direckshun
05-28-2010, 09:54 AM
not in the way you state. i suppose nuking all those countries isn't realistic.

what i hope is two fold. 1) i hope that the higher reaches of our government maintaining a strict vigilance regarding the implementation of Sharia Law in this land. It should never be accepted for any reason under any circumstance.

2) i hope that there are at least discussions of assassinating the leaders of "radical Islam". since we can't destroy the beast, we can at least chop of its heads. an even better scenario would be the assassination of all leaders of Islam.

there is nothing we, the West, can do to appease the Muslims. Nothing. so there's no sense in trying. either we are infidels that should be killed, or we are Muslim. period.

This is some Oz shit, here.