|
Post by dave on Feb 11, 2015 13:42:23 GMT -6
I have a question for the "professionals" who's experience I trust. Is the refusal of the Commander in Chief to call ISIS and other similar groups as radical Islamist affecting our ability to fight effectively? I have always believed to fight back you have to know your enemy. Radical Islam, not any Christian sect, are the ones killing innocents around the world. The do not cull anyone or any group. I do not understand the CIC continual refusal to use the world Islamic in any form. I am wrong? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Feb 11, 2015 13:57:56 GMT -6
No, you are not wrong. The POTUS should be calling the enemy what they are: radical Islamists. His refusal to properly identify the enemy makes it almost impossible to deal with them since we officially don't know who they are. As an example, who can be engaged under the rules of engagement? What constitutes an extremist? What happens if our soldiers engage a group of Muslims that appear to be hostile? Are they brought up on charges if any of the hostiles are not "extremists"? By the very act of not identifying the enemy in a war, and that's what it is, the military can't really get involved as the POTUS is treating this problem as one of law enforcement, rather than a national security issue involving scumbags that want to kill every last one of us.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 11, 2015 14:33:36 GMT -6
To be honest as far as I can see there is only a handful of nations actually taking the IS threat seriously, of course the UK/USA and France are to the fore, but there are plenty of nations who, to be honest, can’t be arsed and bury their head in the sand, some are terrified to act, and to think that IS is the only one that we need to worry about is also wrong as we have can see, all over Africa we have these cowardly gangsters using religion to bully and kill, going back to nations keeping low, has anybody seen the Russians and the Chinese getting involved?
On the news last week it mentioned about a new enforcement unit to work on how to monitor and counter act any threat through the social media, they explained were the headquarters were based, how many people were employed there and how and where they are targeting, talk about letting your enemies know what you are up to, they should kept their mouths shut.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 11, 2015 15:08:23 GMT -6
It is political correctness gone off the deep end, Dave. There is stuff allover the internet regarding POTUS, his ties to Islam, how he has put Muslims in positions of power in the administration. Whether any of that stuff is true or not, he needs to address the real issue, these terrorists are acting in the name of Islam. I don't care whether they are Nazis, Mormons, or Libertarians, he and the administration need to identify it properly. Then decide on a course of action, no red lines in the sand. Put some spine and teeth into whatever he does. As Ian says there are a bunch of nations giving lip service and nothing more. I also think if you follow the money, you will find others behind these murders.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by dave on Feb 11, 2015 15:21:49 GMT -6
I am also alarmed by the CIC and his spokespeople who claimed the Parisian deli attack was not a anti Semetic event. If that occurred in the States I am sure it would be labeled Hate Crime. So again the CIC seems unsure of who are fighting and if they are anti Semetic. I would imagine that service men and women are getting more confused daily by this country's drift without direction or strategy. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 11, 2015 15:50:19 GMT -6
I do not understand the CIC continual refusal to use the world Islamic in any form. Dave, I hadn't noticed that. I might think, however, he is hesitant to use the words "Islam" and "Muslim" simply as an attempt to head off even more public outcry than we have regarding Muslims. The killing of the three Muslims in Chapel Hill is a perfect example and what we do not need more of in this country is additional polarization, especially religious polarization. We have already too much of it. What bothers me the most is the continuing refusal of large groups of American Muslims to come out with a more vociferous condemnation of these radicals like ISIS/ISIL and al-Qaeda. We had just such a loud condemnation here in New York City by a very prominent Islamic cleric who made a huge stink about Muslins not being louder in their condemnation. Problem was, he got very little press so it probably went by virtually unnoticed. I think the Administration is very concerned about an unjust backlash. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 11, 2015 15:54:25 GMT -6
... but there are plenty of nations who, to be honest, can’t be arsed and bury their head in the sand... What makes this issue any different than others? For every hero in this world you have a couple dozen cowards. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Feb 11, 2015 16:42:22 GMT -6
It turns out the killer of the 3 muslims in Chapel Hill shot them over a parking dispute, so the news in now reporting. I also heard on the news that the shooter is a very left-wing liberal, based on facebook likes and posts to places such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Huffington Post, etc. Since this guy is not a right-winger or a republican, the news media will "lose" this story very quickly. Watch and see if I am not right about that.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 11, 2015 17:50:19 GMT -6
It turns out the killer of the 3 muslims in Chapel Hill shot them over a parking dispute, so the news in now reporting. I also heard on the news that the shooter is a very left-wing liberal, based on facebook likes and posts to places such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Huffington Post, etc. Since this guy is not a right-winger or a republican, the news media will "lose" this story very quickly. Watch and see if I am not right about that. You are right because if it wasn't a hate crime, it is merely a local murder so it will remain of interest in that area. It will sink from view of the general public once there is a bigger story. It goes that way with any news story. Big new national news stories quickly overcome what is essentially local news. Take the Boston Bombings. how many people realized that there was an explostion in Texas that killed 15 people two days later. Since the TX explosion had little national importance, it was big news only locally.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 12, 2015 6:35:50 GMT -6
What makes this issue any different than others? For every hero in this world you have a couple dozen cowards True Fred, but as we can see every country in the world will have a few nutters just waiting to kick off, some more than others, so as ISIS gets stronger they will attract others from all over the globe, and just look at all the nations around that neck of the woods, these countries are hot beds for extremist groups, once this thing gets out of hand and we see it spread to Turkey and southern Russia, then it will be a lot harder to formulate a plan of attack, we need everyone on board now, and they will have to show some resolve like we do, you do and France, Belgium, Australia and Canada has done and man up and defeat them in the wide open spaces of Iraq and Syria, then we can turn on the ones in Africa that are kidnapping kids and raising villages to the ground, because the African nations are just the same, they are not bothered what goes on next door to them, and don't get me started on the state of the troops in these places as they melt away leaving the extremists to run-a-mock. Ian.
|
|