NLBS #40: President Obama Can't Say "Radical Islam", so We Offer "Weaponized Islam"

This week, we take a deep-dive into one of last century's biggest, right-under-your-nose conspiracies. Beginning with President Obama's tap-dance around no-nonsense terminology when it comes to violent, extremist Muslims, we follow-through with some really important, rarely referenced history. Starting with Saudi Arabia's critical partnership with the US during World War II, we take some steps through the events of the 1970's and 1980's. It's there, in that history, that we find the new term Obama should be using as a more accurate alternative to "Radical Islam." Though, we doubt he'll take our advice.


(apologies for the audio, we had a mic issue that wasn't apparent until post-production)


Watch in HD on www.TheNLBS.com


Share this video. Tell your friends. Spread the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

And get NLBS t-shirts and swag thenlbs.spreadshirt.com

a reply to: theNLBS

Though, we doubt he'll take our advice.

Why would he Soil his own beliefs..?

a reply to: theNLBS

Shame on Obama for allowing radical Muslim brotherhood in the white house.



Oh, that is Reagan. Never mind.

The audio is crappy but it was still a great episode.

Weaponized Islam....hmm...I like that and think I will use it here now.



The end note err.. wolves????? I think you can do several episodes just on the bat schnit crazy stuff politicians say which may just cover a week of two real-time.

a reply to: mekhanics

Naw.

That's a photoshop.

a reply to: theNLBS

The reason Obama doesn't use the term "Islam" or "Muslim" is the same reason W. Bush didn't either: as soon as we start talking that way it becomes a huge recruitment tool for the Jihadists. "Look, young Muslim, the Great Satan is attacking our religion." It's entirely tactical. I can't understand why the right doesn't understand that. Or I guess they just hate Obama so much they'll do or say anything to attack him even if it damages the national security. This is a twenty first century conflict and a large component is strategic manipulation of information and message.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's a photoshop.

You are right. That was Photoshopped !!!

Here's the software:

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The reason Obama doesn't use the term "Islam" or "Muslim" is the same reason W. Bush didn't either: as soon as we start talking that way it becomes a huge recruitment tool for the Jihadists.

You really should watch the video.

I'm not one to keep up with the MSM, I'm actually a bit surprised about that wench saying "we need to kill them"...

Anyway, I just wanted to say:
Nice job on the white balance!
The whole window/plant background thing is different, but I like how the lighting turned out. Looks professional.

As for "america", this place is a joke these days. Police the world, kill the "bad" guys, etc etc. I feel like its a surrealist reality tv show- let's make the world dramatic behind the scenes, then make a TV show out of what happens- all the while covering only what makes your average american couchpotato feel like a hero for being on the winning team.

Tear it down.


P.S.
I know it's on your radar, but I'd love to see you cover Central Banking. Of course, that's such a # show it might require its own mini series of NLBS.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: theNLBS

The reason Obama doesn't use the term "Islam" or "Muslim" is the same reason W. Bush didn't either: as soon as we start talking that way it becomes a huge recruitment tool for the Jihadists.

Exactly.. Even though it might be accurate it's not presidential.

If someone shoots a doctor that performs abortion, calling it radical Christianity puts it somewhere in the spectrum of Christianity. When we all know there's nothing Christian about murder..

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The reason Obama doesn't use the term "Islam" or "Muslim" is the same reason W. Bush didn't either: as soon as we start talking that way it becomes a huge recruitment tool for the Jihadists.

You really should watch the video.

Will do. I was basing my comment on the line "tap dance around no-nonsense terminology" which seems pretty much in line with the partisan jingoism being spouted ad nauseum.

a reply to: theNLBS

You have a narrative break which the left will/may jump you for. Barack Obama attended a Madrassa in Indonesia. You state, very accurately, that madrassas were created to teach weaponized Islam. However, about 7 years ago, when Hillary Clinton was the first to point out that Obama was madrassa educated, the narrative became "madrassa just means school in Islam." These type of narrative changes should be far bigger deals than today's public make them out to be.

So please, choose one. Did the USA build schools in the Islam world..
or did Barack Obama receive an education in weaponized Islam?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
So please, choose one. Did the USA build schools in the Islam world..

The video is specific to the development of Weaponized Islam. The USA's cooperation with Pakistan in the training of Arab recruits for the Mujahideen being the pivotal part. Before the CIA's involvement, yes, madrassas were schools for various versions Islam. The CIA-funded madrassas taught a newly-minted intense form Jihadist Wahhabism. Not all madrassas teach the same thing.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The video does a poor job of differentiating from about 8:30 in the video
"set up Madrassas, religious schools which teach weaponized Islam." While I may be missing a subtlety of context here, it comes across as Madrassas themselves being institutions of weponized Islam.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

"The CIA worked with Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, to radicalize Mujahideen fighters when they were sent to Pakistan for training.

With funding and assistance from the CIA, they set up hundreds of madrassas, religious schools to teach the recruits weaponized Islam."

That's not clear?

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: DelMarvel
The reason Obama doesn't use the term "Islam" or "Muslim" is the same reason W. Bush didn't either: as soon as we start talking that way it becomes a huge recruitment tool for the Jihadists.

You really should watch the video.

Pretty good video.

But as I said the OP and the thumbnail for the vid make it sound like it's just going to be more partisan bull#.

One quibble: he doesn't have the primary causes of the Iranian revolution and the Iranian hostility toward the U.S. right in my opinion. Since the main point of the video is the U.S. creation of the Mujahideen I assume this is targeted at those who aren't up to speed so you should probably touch on the 1952 CIA coup which put the Shah in power. There was also the backlash against the forced westernization of the country under the Shah and the CIA trained SAVAK was one of the most brutal and repressive secret police forces in the world. The Carter administration was oblivious to what was going on. Carter posed arm and arm with the Shah shortly after peaceful protestors were gunned down in the street.

Also, I think the choice to avoid the term "radical islam" is made for more than just avoiding offending the Saudis. There are over a billion Musilms world wide to avoid offending. However, right on target with pointing out the Saudi support of Wahhabism/Salafism.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I understand the claim, SO. What I'm saying is that there has been a half dozen years in which Americans have been asked to separate the connection between Islamic religious schools and the teaching of terror, all because we have a president who spent 4 years being trained at one of those Islamic schools. Isn't it interesting that, in almost every other case, words have been invented to create a clear separation between evil and good... but with so many Islamo-centric issues, it is virtually impossible to separate the good from the evil based solely on the various verbage used? Everything is contextually objective, which obviously adds a lot of confusion, doubt, and suspicion to the mix. I don't know if that is by design and, if it is, whose design it was.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not all Islamic schools teach the same thing.

Just like not all Christian schools teach the same thing. My Baptist school tried to teach me that violence against abortionists was okay. Catholic schools don't do that.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Agreed, but that's why we call Baptist Schools "Baptist Schools." Catholic schools "Catholic Schools", and so on and so forth. That's my whole point here, there is a distinct lack of descriptors applied to various elements of Islam. I just don't know if that's intentionally something the west is doing to muddy the waters, or if it is something Islam itself pushes.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theNLBS

You have a narrative break which the left will/may jump you for. Barack Obama attended a Madrassa in Indonesia. You state, very accurately, that madrassas were created to teach weaponized Islam. However, about 7 years ago, when Hillary Clinton was the first to point out that Obama was madrassa educated, the narrative became "madrassa just means school in Islam." These type of narrative changes should be far bigger deals than today's public make them out to be.

So please, choose one. Did the USA build schools in the Islam world..
or did Barack Obama receive an education in weaponized Islam?

You're over simplifying. Madrassa DOES just mean school. So, yes, some madrassas have been setup or infiltrated to teach the Wahhabi version of Islam but not all Madrassas teach that. There are lots of Sufi Madrassas for example. The school Obama attended did not teach radical Islam. That story started as a hit job by the Hilary Clinton campaign.