The present world war on ISIS(ISIL) would be immediately lost ideologically if Obama called ISIL(ISIS) "Islamic Terrorists" because the 1.1 billion Sunnis might identify with ISIS(ISIL) more as a direct result. However, if the military war isn't more specific than it presently is the war can never be won. So, the U.S. and Europe are standing in the middle of a military and ideological conundrum as a direct result of this reality.
So, finding a way to define who exactly it is we are fighting is important. For example, the three girls from England and their previous friend who were all below 17 and 2 only 15 is a ideological publicity disaster in itself for Europe at the very least. So, for example, unless the girls are found raped, dead, pregnant or whatever, this will be an ongoing disaster not only for England but also for all Europe. Declaring war on A student ideological naive converts to ISIS just will tend to create more of them and depress everyone on earth who doesn't want these girls to be raped, gang raped, impregnated like they already might be today or thrown into a pile after bleeding to death because they are just too idealistic and silly and not realistic at all. So, this is but one example of just how bad this whole situation is now worldwide. Because this news is out on the wire all over the world and impressionable girls can read about it everywhere and if they are Sunni Muslims have fantasies. So, how does the world deal with this?
Who we are fighting and killing and why must be much more closely defined in a really useful way or this thing (and new converts) could keep going for 1, 10, 20 or even 100 years the way this is presently going. And young people (both male and female are so impressionable and prone to homicidal and suicidal thoughts (either way) that this could just get worse and worse over time unless definitions are made correctly now.
begin quote:
PunditFact: Why Obama won't label ISIS as 'Islamic extremists' (w/video)
| Tampabay.com | - |
Something
as simple as how to define the enemy in the United States' current
fight in the Middle East has become a focal point in recent days.
PunditFact: Why Obama won't label ISIS as 'Islamic extremists' (w/video)
Something as simple as how to define the
enemy in the United States' current fight in the Middle East has become a
focal point in recent days.
Are members of the Islamic State "Islamic" extremists? Or are they, as President Barack Obama calls them, "violent extremists"?
"I've never been more worried about my country than I am today in terms of radical Islam," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on ABC's This Week.
"And yes, it is radical Islam," Graham said, joining a growing number of conservatives critical of Obama for avoiding blunt talk about the Islamic State and its goals.
Is the Obama administration sacrificing honest dialogue for political correctness, or is all of this a petty word debate ready-made for cable news?
As PunditFact learned, it's a question not easily settled.
Obama's rhetoric
In recent months, Obama has been careful to set the Islamic State, or ISIS, apart from the rest of the Muslim world. Critics have called out Obama for being, as Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said on Fox News Sunday, "unwilling to call Islamic extremism what it is."
Although Obama has not used those words, he has said Islam plays a role in the Islamic State's strategy. Obama has said that even though the Islamic State uses religion to justify its extremism, its ideology does not mesh with mainstream, modern Islamic thought.
"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That's why ISIL presumes to declare itself the 'Islamic State.' And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam," Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last week, using another name for the group. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Some have noted that this isn't that different than some of former President George W. Bush's language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in 2002.
Why such a careful choice of words? Experts we contacted offered a few theories.
For one, the Islamic State is just one of numerous jihadist groups that the United States is fighting in the Middle East and North Africa, including al-Qaida and its affiliates. And the Islamic State has several qualities that set it apart from other jihadi groups, such as its desire to immediately create a caliphate. In that sense, it would be misleading to lump these groups into one singular enemy code-worded as "Islamic extremism," said James Gelvin, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Additionally, several countries helping the United States fight the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are Muslim nations. In those cases, it is in the United States' interest not to be at war with a religion.
The tightrope act has had some success, officials say.
Declassified files from Osama bin Laden's compound show that the Obama administration's decision to try to separate terrorist groups from Islam had negatively impacted al-Qaida's brand. Bin Laden wrote that Muslims were less likely to feel as if they belonged to al-Qaida because the Obama administration had "largely stopped using the phrase 'the war on terror' in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims," according to the Washington Post.
Islam, Islamic State
Most of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims would say the Islamic State is not at all close to Islam — at least not modern interpretations.
But just as in other religions, moderates and fundamentalists within Islam rarely see eye-to-eye on interpretations of the Koran.
The Islamic State's "penalties, punishments show that its people do not know Islamic law, which is why now the other Arab states are fighting back," said Khaleel Mohammed, a San Diego State University professor of Islamic studies. "It would be disingenuous of me to say that they are outcasts, however, because if you interview many Muslims, you will find that they might not believe all the stories we are hearing, and might assume that the ISIS (fighters) are being maligned."
The Islamic State adheres to strict, literal interpretations of the Koran and Islamic teachings rooted in 18th century religious philosophy called Wahhabism. This ideology, the dominant faith in Saudi Arabia, is focused on a return to the "truth faith" of the first caliphate established after the death of the prophet Mohammed, a time when Islam was not "polluted" by Christianity, paganism or governmental interference, said Richard Brennan, a Middle East expert at the nonpartisan think tank RAND Corp.
The Islamic State goes even further than traditional Wahhabism by adhering to takfir — the belief that some people who say they are Muslim are not truly Muslim, and therefore there is reason to kill them, Gelvin said. The vast majority of the Islamic world tends to believe that if people profess they are Muslim, then they are, no matter how they specifically practice their faith.
What's in a name
Experts were divided on how Obama should refer to the jihadists.
It would not be wrong to call the Islamic State an "Islamic extremist" group, Gelvin said, but it's unnecessary to emphasize the religious aspect when "their doctrine is exceedingly unpopular among most people who consider themselves Muslims."
Brennan said Obama is "too cautious" because Islamic State teachings reflect a strain of Islam. "It is a strain that has attracted at least 40,000 followers and probably more," he said.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative think thank in Washington, said Obama's public description of the group is not problematic so long as sufficient effort is put into understanding what the Islamic State wants and why. Too often, he said, analysts downplay the religious element of extremist groups.
end quote from:
"I've never been more worried about my country than I am today in terms of radical Islam," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on ABC's This Week.
"And yes, it is radical Islam," Graham said, joining a growing number of conservatives critical of Obama for avoiding blunt talk about the Islamic State and its goals.
Is the Obama administration sacrificing honest dialogue for political correctness, or is all of this a petty word debate ready-made for cable news?
As PunditFact learned, it's a question not easily settled.
Obama's rhetoric
In recent months, Obama has been careful to set the Islamic State, or ISIS, apart from the rest of the Muslim world. Critics have called out Obama for being, as Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said on Fox News Sunday, "unwilling to call Islamic extremism what it is."
Although Obama has not used those words, he has said Islam plays a role in the Islamic State's strategy. Obama has said that even though the Islamic State uses religion to justify its extremism, its ideology does not mesh with mainstream, modern Islamic thought.
"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam. That's why ISIL presumes to declare itself the 'Islamic State.' And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam," Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism last week, using another name for the group. "We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."
Some have noted that this isn't that different than some of former President George W. Bush's language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in 2002.
Why such a careful choice of words? Experts we contacted offered a few theories.
For one, the Islamic State is just one of numerous jihadist groups that the United States is fighting in the Middle East and North Africa, including al-Qaida and its affiliates. And the Islamic State has several qualities that set it apart from other jihadi groups, such as its desire to immediately create a caliphate. In that sense, it would be misleading to lump these groups into one singular enemy code-worded as "Islamic extremism," said James Gelvin, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Additionally, several countries helping the United States fight the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are Muslim nations. In those cases, it is in the United States' interest not to be at war with a religion.
The tightrope act has had some success, officials say.
Declassified files from Osama bin Laden's compound show that the Obama administration's decision to try to separate terrorist groups from Islam had negatively impacted al-Qaida's brand. Bin Laden wrote that Muslims were less likely to feel as if they belonged to al-Qaida because the Obama administration had "largely stopped using the phrase 'the war on terror' in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims," according to the Washington Post.
Islam, Islamic State
Most of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims would say the Islamic State is not at all close to Islam — at least not modern interpretations.
But just as in other religions, moderates and fundamentalists within Islam rarely see eye-to-eye on interpretations of the Koran.
The Islamic State's "penalties, punishments show that its people do not know Islamic law, which is why now the other Arab states are fighting back," said Khaleel Mohammed, a San Diego State University professor of Islamic studies. "It would be disingenuous of me to say that they are outcasts, however, because if you interview many Muslims, you will find that they might not believe all the stories we are hearing, and might assume that the ISIS (fighters) are being maligned."
The Islamic State adheres to strict, literal interpretations of the Koran and Islamic teachings rooted in 18th century religious philosophy called Wahhabism. This ideology, the dominant faith in Saudi Arabia, is focused on a return to the "truth faith" of the first caliphate established after the death of the prophet Mohammed, a time when Islam was not "polluted" by Christianity, paganism or governmental interference, said Richard Brennan, a Middle East expert at the nonpartisan think tank RAND Corp.
The Islamic State goes even further than traditional Wahhabism by adhering to takfir — the belief that some people who say they are Muslim are not truly Muslim, and therefore there is reason to kill them, Gelvin said. The vast majority of the Islamic world tends to believe that if people profess they are Muslim, then they are, no matter how they specifically practice their faith.
What's in a name
Experts were divided on how Obama should refer to the jihadists.
It would not be wrong to call the Islamic State an "Islamic extremist" group, Gelvin said, but it's unnecessary to emphasize the religious aspect when "their doctrine is exceedingly unpopular among most people who consider themselves Muslims."
Brennan said Obama is "too cautious" because Islamic State teachings reflect a strain of Islam. "It is a strain that has attracted at least 40,000 followers and probably more," he said.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative think thank in Washington, said Obama's public description of the group is not problematic so long as sufficient effort is put into understanding what the Islamic State wants and why. Too often, he said, analysts downplay the religious element of extremist groups.
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment