Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document

reply to post by genius/idoit


Sounds like BH would just label everyone a rapist and wait for them to prove they werent one:

to expand watchfulness to include ANYONE, of ANY religion or no religion, who would threaten our country or the citizens of our country, even citizens of our country! Constricting the thought to Islam or religious extremism leaves out the extremists of other ilks that would cause harm to us.

BH is taking the tyranny for security approach. Bush would be proud.

Originally posted by genius/idoit


Allah Akbar indeed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The rest of the world is walking all over us right now!! Do you really think this will help improve our image? It will simply result in more feet on our back.

I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of America right now. How about repairing our nation first? We have much fatter fish to fry at the moment.

How will we pull Social Security out of the red and pay for Obamacare at the same time??

Now I'm confused. I thought this war was against MUSLIM EXTREMISTS. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't remember fighting against Jewish extremists or people that just don't like the idea of cheeseburgers or fat people. We are fighting people who are fighting for the sole purpose of jihad. Why then would Nobama change the wording? Could it be that it's because he is one. I think finally people are starting to realize that he is in fact not the Messiah. Well guess what people,,,,, can't undoe it.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Remember that.

This "war" is against everything and everyone. Always has been. It's about control and dominion.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It wasn't control and dominion that keeps suicide bombing everything. It is Muslim Extremeists. These people have been this way forever and everyone knows it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


reply to post by genius/idoit


I have no idea what's got your panties in a twist. You clearly have misunderstood my position, but by your illogical ranting, I cannot tell what your problem is. Perhaps if you lose the emotional suppositions (which are entirely inaccurate, by the way) we could get to the bottom of your problem.

Just to reiterate, my position is this:

Regarding our national security strategy, we need to be watchful of ALL extremists, not just Muslims, who would harm our country or the citizens of our country. That was very clear in my post.

If you have a problem with that, then we simply disagree. But what you have extrapolated from that is entirely in your imagination.

Okay so let's rename it then, since the root of the violence is the twisting of a religion and lay it squarley at the feet of the true enemy. Wahhabi extremism. Whether you call it Islamic extremism or not, the fact remains the major pushing force behind it is a twisting of a religious ideology and incitement through religious fervor. I think John Paul Zodeaux has it right, this is a slight of hand to be able to include those pesky "tea party extremists".

The problem was never Islam.

The problem was always, and still is, terrorism born of "militant radical extremism."

What flavor of terrorism is about as relevent as how tall they are or what color shirt they wear.

No one can go around imposing thir cultural, economic, or ideological will on others without consequences. The think tanks knew this all along. They are just now realizing that the labeling of it is cosmetic, at best.

The US was used (and is still being used) by the mercantile corrporate cabal to exploit commercial opprtunities around the world. They piss off all sorts of people and when those people retaliate... it is the US citizens that take the beating.

There ARE American citizens who are Muslim in faith, crafting government documents that identify radical extremism as a threat if it comes from THAT particular faith belies the 'objectivity' of the American people (such as it is). I for one think it is the right thing to do.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by djvexd
I think John Paul Zodeaux has it right, this is a slight of hand to be able to include those pesky "tea party extremists".

I don't think it's a sleight of hand at all. I think it's pretty obvious. And those pesky tea party extremists NEED to be included. Why would you want to protect extremism? Because you agree with it?

If we had been more watchful before 9/11, it wouldn't have happened (if you believe the official story). If we had been more watchful before the Oklahoma City bombing, it wouldn't have happened. Those pesky tea party extremists are threatening violence and many of them sound VERY much like they're willing to use terrorism to get their way. Why should they be excluded? Violent overthrow of this country and domestic terrorism are illegal and should be addressed.

ANYONE who takes a cause or religion and twists it to use it to violently terrorize of force an opinion is an extremist and should be dealt with equally.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Why go the route of violence and justify the tyrants actions in the name of safety when doing nothing at all is making the government so paranoid it's expanding its list of "enemies" exponentially every day and taking more time and money to look over its own shoulder as well as everyone elses?

It'll defeat itself with its own fear and mistrust.

Think of all the man hours and money wasted chasing down some stupid letters last week.

Millions of vague letters to whatever politicians for whatever reason could blow the gasket. And give the USPS a nice boost.

This is a good thing and a bad thing. It is good, cause the president is seeking to ease tensions with those who do not trust the US and try to salvage some sort of relationship from the ashes of ruins. However it is a bad thing, and the reason why is cause now it not only broadens but fails to give a clear cut idea on who and what we are fighting for and against. Wars and conflicts can not be won without clear cut goals and a narrow view of who we are fighting. By removing the definition, by standing there and broadening the view, we risk loosing said conflicts. Right now the enemy is islamic extremist and as distateful for the Federal government to state it, it needs to be stated. Wars are not just won on the battle field, it is an effort of the state, and those who are at home, and those who support the enemy. I do not believe that Obama or the US congress understands that, and they are setting us up to lose.

Obama is after all, an Islamic leader in good standing. People will understand this fact a little too late. Till then he'll just keep promoting Islam and getting it firmly established in the US.

This is why this doesn't matter

The Obama Administration has authorised the targeted killing of an American citizen in what is believed to be an unprecedented move in the War against Terror.

According to US media reports, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been linked to last November's attack on Fort Hood, Texas, and the failed Christmas day airline bomb plot, has been approved for capture or killing.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The only reason why there's isn't so much brouhaha over this is because it's about a muslim. Eventually it will spread as applicable to anyone and everyone.

No need for trial just kill him, the obsolecense of justice.

Obama: "We don't verbally discriminate against muslims, we just kill them".

That's why it doesn't matter!

[edit on 7-4-2010 by ModernAcademia]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Up until your last post, at worst you were coming off as disingenuous, but with that last post, you've boldly crossed the line from dis ingenuousness to a radical extremist terrorist sympathizer. When you make statements such as this:

I don't think it's a sleight of hand at all. I think it's pretty obvious. And those pesky tea party extremists NEED to be included. Why would you want to protect extremism? Because you agree with it?

Equating The Tea Party to Wahabism or even the PLO, IRA, or SLA, is not only over the top extremism, it typifies the insanity of extremism. Of course, it shouldn't be missed that while you call The Tea Party "pesky", the real terrorist groups are far more than pesky, and do far more than engage in the political system to bring about peaceful change, the real terrorist instead rely upon...well, terror.

If we had been more watchful before 9/11, it wouldn't have happened (if you believe the official story). If we had been more watchful before the Oklahoma City bombing, it wouldn't have happened. Those pesky tea party extremists are threatening violence and many of them sound VERY much like they're willing to use terrorism to get their way. Why should they be excluded? Violent overthrow of this country and domestic terrorism are illegal and should be addressed.

Since you seem to be relying upon the official story regarding 9/11 then either you are ignoring the fact that, or just ignorant of it, that the terrorists associated with 9/11 had all ready committed several acts of violence and while they continued to make threats, it was not the act of some misguided extremists within the group, it was the group that was and, (if you're going to believe the official story), is still committing acts of unthinkable violence. But hey, you have an agenda, albeit an extremist one, and so you propose what? Threatening violence towards those "pesky" Tea Party activists, to further your own political ideology?

ANYONE who takes a cause or religion and twists it to use it to violently terrorize of force an opinion is an extremist and should be dealt with equally.

It is doubtful that many reading your post will think you mean by "dealt with equally" that you are suggesting some peaceful resolution between government and anyone you label extremist, where a nice dialogue between two parties ensues, and it is fairly presumed you mean either detain Tea Party activists as enemy combatants or to simply just kill them. What makes you different from any of these extremists you seem to want to demonize?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Equating The Tea Party to Wahabism ...

Stop right there. Keep your pants on. I didn't equate the tea party with anything. I said the tea party EXTREMISTS. I actually somewhat liked the tea party (before it was infiltrated). I'm all for diversity of political thought. But there are people who USED the tea party as their "cause" and took their government hatred to an EXTREME. Just as the Muslim extremists used Islam as their cause took the religion to an EXTREME. I'm not condemning the original tea party movement. Just those whack-os who attached themselves to the movement and decided to use violence to get their way.

Of course, it shouldn't be missed that while you call The Tea Party "pesky"...

I was quoting this poster. Have you READ the thread?

Since you seem to be relying upon the official story regarding 9/11

You're losing it, bud. I don't rely on the official story. You really should read more carefully instead of jumping off the cliff and making all these ridiculous assumptions you're making. I'm under no obligation to correct all your assumptions. Think whatever you like. But you might want to read more carefully before doing so.

Originally posted by Kaploink
This makes sense to me. We need to focus on terrorism groups, not religions.

This quote is like saying that the Ku Klux Klan is not a hate-mongering organization. The only reason that they have a bad name is that a few of its members were responsible for some heinous crimes.

Here's the truth of the KKK. If you're a member of the KKK, then you hate all other races that's not "white".

If you're a member of the Islam faith, then you're a terrorist or support the terrorist agenda.

If you say that this is not true then you are a liar.

I've read enough of the Koran to know that between its covers, it supports violence against anyone who doesn't believe it.

Getting to the subject of the topic, Obama is doing what an American president should never do: appease to a terrorist organization.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Those pesky tea party extremists are threatening violence and many of them sound VERY much like they're willing to use terrorism to get their way.

Yes I have read the entire thread, and that poster is a friend of mine, so yes I read what he posted, however, you have not, as opposed djvexed who did place quotations around "tea party extremist", placed any quotation marks around the phrase to indicate that you don't believe they are anything other than pesky, and indeed, let us look at your rebuttal:

Stop right there. Keep your pants on. I didn't equate the tea party with anything. I said the tea party EXTREMISTS. I actually somewhat liked the tea party (before it was infiltrated). I'm all for diversity of political thought. But there are people who USED the tea party as their "cause" and took their government hatred to an EXTREME. Just as the Muslim extremists used Islam as their cause took the religion to an EXTREME. I'm not condemning the original tea party movement. Just those whack-os who attached themselves to the movement and decided to use violence to get their way.

Oh, never mind, you do see them as more than pesky don't you, only your perception is fantasy not of this reality and you are equating those so called extremist with the "Muslim extremists" who have undeniably engaged in horrific violence in order to gain attention. What horrific violence or any sort of violence that would deserve being called terrorism has a Tea Party "Extremist" used? When is it that a Tea Party "Extremist" has taken to suicide bombing, non suicidal bombing, and other forms of deadly force to gain attention? Could you provide me with some verifiable evidence of this?

You're losing it, bud. I don't rely on the official story. You really should read more carefully instead of jumping off the cliff and making all these ridiculous assumptions you're making. I'm under no obligation to correct all your assumptions. Think whatever you like. But you might want to read more carefully before doing so.

You want to have it both ways:

If we had been more watchful before 9/11, it wouldn't have happened (if you believe the official story). If we had been more watchful before the Oklahoma City bombing, it wouldn't have happened. Those pesky tea party extremists are threatening violence and many of them sound VERY much like they're willing to use terrorism to get their way. Why should they be excluded? Violent overthrow of this country and domestic terrorism are illegal and should be addressed.

If you are not relying upon the official stories for both 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing, then what do you mean "if we had been more watchful"? I know, my friend, from reading many of your posts that you do indeed seem to have some sympathy towards what you refer to as the "original tea party movement", and I do indeed read yours and every other post carefully before responding. So, you can bet your bottom dollar that when I very carefully read your most recent post, your equivocation remains in fine form. Consider this remark you made:

I'm all for diversity of political thought.

and compare it with a remark you made in an earlier post:

I don't think it's a sleight of hand at all. I think it's pretty obvious. And those pesky tea party extremists NEED to be included. Why would you want to protect extremism? Because you agree with it?

So, while you're all for diversity, (the quality of being diverse, of thought, apparently what you mean by that is you're all for uniformity of "diverse" thought. Perhaps you should read your own words more carefully.

That said, I think I will take your advise and go put my pants back on. Although, it is a warm day today.

So the Obama Admin is removing words from a national security document that might be perceived as offensive?

So?

I think its a brilliant move. What an easy way to appease someone. Oh sure we wont call yall extremists anymore. We will just kill you, but hey at least we wont be viewing you through that extremist lens in our written documentation!!

Sounds like typical democratic pc appeasement.

Really sadly typical.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I said the tea party EXTREMISTS. I actually somewhat liked the tea party (before it was infiltrated). I'm all for diversity of political thought. But there are people who USED the tea party as their "cause" and took their government hatred to an EXTREME. Just as the Muslim extremists used Islam as their cause took the religion to an EXTREME. I'm not condemning the original tea party movement. Just those whack-os who attached themselves to the movement and decided to use violence to get their way.

you do realize the tea parties are mostly democrats and independants right?

Secondly your comment is not about the tea party or even individuals in the tea party but rather what has been portrayed to you regarding the tea parties.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
If you're a member of the Islam faith, then you're a terrorist or support the terrorist agenda.

If you say that this is not true then you are a liar.

I've read enough of the Koran to know that between its covers, it supports violence against anyone who doesn't believe it.

You are an extremist!
Now that that is said, moving on.

You said that you read the koran and it says to hate others.
So the NT and the OT do not say that?