Why are liberals offended by the term 'radical Islamic terrorism'?
Because it’s dangerously inaccurate. Terrorist acts have been committed by a wide variety of groups for a wide variety of reasons. Using the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” ignores, condones, forgives, and encourages all other forms of terrorism because it blindly focuses on one set of causes.Because it blames the religion for the terrorism. We have many enemies in the Middle East. But those enemies have their own enemies in the same region. These people could be allies and spies for America. These people would be our very best weapon against ISIS. But they are also followers of Islam. Insulting them does our cause no good and it makes a great recruiting tool for our enemies. ISIS recruiters keep telling people that America hates all Muslims and wants to kill all Muslims, so all Muslims need to join the fight against America. If we stop calling the terrorists, Muslim, the recruiters are handicapped and our recruiters have a much better chance.Because it turns victims into terrorists. Most of the people killed by terrorists are other Muslims. Many of the Syrian refugees are Muslims fleeing terrorism. But Trump and the hard-right conservatives can’t get past hating Muslims and believing them all to be terrorists or terrorist supporters. So the Syrian refugees and other Muslim refugees are forced to go back to their own countries. When they get there, they have a choice between death or joining the terrorist effort. Instead of having grateful refugees supporting the United States, getting jobs, seeking citizenship, we are sending them away and increasing the numbers of our enemies.Because liberals are offended by deliberate stupidity. All these reasons are good reasons not to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” Most Republicans and most conservatives are smart enough to know these things. But they let the most ignorant among them lead their party.
What has barack obama accomplished since becoming president?
i am looking for a non-partisan viewpoint...please be as objective as possible...i do not wish to hear any liberal or conservative rants...i just want an honest, factual assessment of what he has done since being sworn in to office...thank you
When it comes to terrorism, is America somewhat responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism?
Coarse they are!! Just look at what they've done since the end of WW2! Along with Britain and France, helped create Israel, and with it, killed slaughtered and displaced hundreds of thousands of palastinian! Ousted Saddam Hussain with an illegal war! Helped overthrow Colonal Gadaffi! Invaded Afghanistan, after 9/11, even tho apparantly most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia! (personally I think 9/11 was an inside job, set up by the American government! But that's another story!! Lol) what I've mentioned is only the tip of the iceburg! Even some of the big American oil companies, are partly controlled by the government, and they played a part in Africa! Causing civil wars! All this and they have the audacity to wrap it all up in the guise of ‘democrocy!’ come on people! Wake up! The USA, Britain, France and the rest are ONLY interested in what they can get for themselfs! There hypocrites!! How can they and Israel preach, especially to Iran and north Korea about nuclear weapons and slap sanctions on them, but yet it's ok for them . Have nuclear weapons, use nuclear energy and test new weapons! Wtf! HOWS THAT DEMOCROCY??? People are starting to see thru the facade! Wether it's Bush, Obama or Trump, esentially, there ALL the same! These governments are hand in hand with each other, and in the pockets of the super rich, corperations and the banks, and they try brainwash us all! Try telling us what to think, take away our civil liberties! And America is the one in charge, sat at the top table!…….oooppsss!! Soz, think I've started rambling a bit! Lol! Never mind!
Why don't Obama and Hillary Clinton do more to eradicate ISIS terrorism from the world?
No. Not at all true. There is truth in the claim that the United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, which overthrew the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein but then left the country — already a European construct (created after WWI), which crammed rivalrous populations into uneasy national unity — to fall into chaos. This was, let us be clear, the fault of George W. Bush and his administration, among whom were some of the most evil actors in modern political history (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.), and of the jelly-spined Congress that authorized the action. Let us note that Hillary Clinton voted for that war, but that both Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders did not.But that is not the only thing that led to the rise of ISIS. ISIS relies on the political instability and disaffection of populations in Middle Eastern countries whose governments are weak. Another precondition for ISIS’ existence is the failure of the “Arab Spring.” ISIS sells itself as some kind of sectarian religious alternative to what are perceived as failed states. That, combined with their brutal ideology, appeals above all to angry and anomic young males.Historical phenomena are almost never — perhaps just plain never — monocausal.President Obama’s largest mistake was to underestimate ISIS, to call them Al Qaeda’s “j.v. team.” That was an error in judgment; like the rest of the world, he has been forced to see differently. But despite the endless airstrikes, which have contributed to the weakening of ISIS’ position and the diminution of its geographical hold in Syria and Iraq — a policy, in other words, that has worked to some extent — Obama has been wise enough never to call for carpet-bombing, or to put “boots on the ground” in the region of the caliphate. This is because doing so would (a) only further the ISIS narrative that there will be an apocalyptic showdown between itself and the Far Enemy, and (b) in turn, perpetuate a view of Western imperialism ISIS could use for further recruitment.Despite the desperate (and distracting) terror attacks in Europe, ISIS is, in point of fact, weakening, and President Obama has contributed to their degradation.Want to see an American president re-empower ISIS and help than take back what they’ve lost? Elect Donald Trump. If he wins, ISIS will have itself a little renaissance — just as Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, wrote during his Quora session yesterday.
What US Presidential candidate does ISIS favor to become elected and why?
If I'm running an apocalyptic extremist organization that is pushing a narrative of "It's Islam against the world!", I certainly want the President who plans to carpet-bomb Raqqa, a city the size of Pittsburgh that is full of women and children.Think of the propaganda videos! The recruitment goals smashed like a priceless historical artifact! The coffers overflowing, just like water into the submerged cages of infidels!A Democrat getting elected, leading to a reasoned and coordinated global response, is actually ISIS's worst nightmare.
Who is Obama trying to Protect by not showing americans the proof of death?
He doesn't have the courage of his convictions--in that we deserve to see the proof...we suffered not him..and yet his inability to connect with people--americans more than his allegiance to Islam, is unequaled. What say you?
What threat does ISIS pose to US national security?
We only need to look at Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon and France (and the effects of Nice, Bataclan and Charlie Hebdo (as well as others such as the brutal church attack in Rouen) to understand what DA3SH hopes to accomplish, and what it can do to damage American security as a whole.The main threat that DA3SH poses to US national security can be explained in several areas:Terror attacks by DA3SH are meant to create a climate of fear, chaos, panic and hatred to also reduce the population’s will to resist (especially amongst Muslims) which will hopefully….draw Federal resources away from attacking it and other Islamic ethnoreligious terror outfits on a global scale, as well asdestroy the United States from within by compromising Federal legitimacy on a whole to create an environment ripe enough for an Islamic insurrection against the United States. The fact that people trust Trump over Clinton to act tough on terror in the polls already shows that DA3SH is winning in the US.A successful terror attack on US soil can be milked for propaganda gain by DA3SH to convince others of its own legitimacy. You can condemn them for their “barbaric” deeds but make no mistake, Middle Easterm military culture prizes killing with impunity. The best recruits will continue to join DA3SH and it can also keep control of its own operatives as long as it launches terror attacks and claims credit for them.Ultimately, terror attacks aimed at the USA are meant to weaken the USA from within (wasted and diverted resources) and to galvanise Muslim resistance against Washington both within America itself and without.See also:Will ISIS really attack Malaysia?Should the US be worried about ISIS?Do you think that the world has lost the war against ISIS?What is the Islamic terrorists' purpose in attacking Europe?Can ISIS do the same with India as they did with Iraq and Syria?Why can't the ISIS and other terrorist groups just bomb a place by air?