Thursday, June 16, 2016

Quick Thought....

Republicans seem to think terrorism is some ghost in a Tim Burton movie and if we just said “radical Islam” three times aloud, it would go away.  I think Obama has made it tragically clear that he has no issue bombing Muslims as he has done it steadily for the last eight years and, as the GOP points out, we are no safer.   Why would more bombs and a change in lexicon make any difference?

5 comments: said...

Supposedly the rational behind the republican (as well as some conservative democrats) desire to state unequivocally "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is to enhance our capabilities to detect/prevent/identify/destroy terror groups within the United States. Changing the name has implications regarding Federal Statues I suppose in what they are legally allowed to do. There are some on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as in between, that feel that due to political correctness our government has systematically undermine the FBI ( and other National Security Agencies) who's job, as you know, is to protect us from these kind of threats. Given our civil liberties it's an important issue to debate. Also I've heard some republicans say that naming the problem helps to define it better; according to them it means stop living in denial by calling it something it isn't and pretending everyone loves us when they don't. I could go on, but I don't believe it's necessarily like a Tim Burton moment. I see it more like Arnold moment in "Total Recall" as Sharon Stone professes her love and he sees right through it and all the lies/deception.

The bombing is another thing you bring up. I think those who advocate more bombs are those who believe in the "Powel Doctrine" and believe currently we are doing less than what we should, in their opinion. It's the equivalent to giving someone with diabetes only 5 units of insulin when the doctors prescribed 14 units. Personally I would rather drop viagra from the planes, but what do I know. said...


Brad Schader said...

It's the equivalent to giving someone with diabetes only 5 units of insulin when the doctors prescribed 14 units.

More like trying to give someone 14 when the doctor only wants 5 to me. The military experts all say bombing doesn't work and we are creating more future terrorists than we are killing. Our drone program has Old Glory dropping bombs indiscriminately according almost every official report with even CIA people claiming a flaw in our program is that "any three farmers loading manure in a truck is considered a terrorist first." Remember Pat Tillman. Remember Jessica Lynch. It amazes me how everyone we kill is a terrorist somehow.

Reminds me of Full Metal Jacket:

Question: How can you tell VC from civilians?

Gunner: Anyone who runs is VC. Anyone who stands still is well disciplined VC. said...

With all due respect that's not necessarily as I understand it entirely. What I've heard is that the military experts have said is that bombing by ITSELF is not effective. They've emphasized the need for good intelligence on the ground to help direct the targeted area for more accuracy In order to avoid civilian casualties; and the use of foot soldiers which are necessary in order to finish off the mission. As far as I am concerned the nations themselves can provide all of their own resources to this cause. I am an isolationist; not an interventionist or nation builder.

Recruitment is enhanced by our involvement but the sad truth is even if we did nothing and made nice they'd still find reasons to hate us because of our support for Israel. I don't see it as us against them or America against Islam; to me it about secularism vs theocratic dictatorships.

Good discussion thank you

Brad Schader said...

This is in the news today:

And, despite the apparent failure of the military strategy, Brennan said "a long and difficult fight" would continue against the group whose number of fighters now "far exceeds what al-Qaeda had at its height."

His comments confirm warnings from many on the left that a military strategy to defeat ISIL, or ISIS, as it is also known, would only foment further acts of terrorism. Institute for Policy Studies fellow Phyllis Bennis, for example, warned in 2014, when President Barack Obama said he authorized new U.S. military airstrikes in Iraq to target ISIS, "it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters."