Quote :

"Implicitly rejecting the antiterrorism rhetoric of the Bush administration, Brennan said that "our enemy is not terrorism, because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror, because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear." "Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists," Brennan said, because use of these religious terms would "play into the false perception" that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are "religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052604234.html

On the one hand, I can see the strategic advantage of playing the religion card this way. It helps marginalize these groups as it speaks to Muslims in their own language. "Al Qaeda and their affiliates aren't true Muslims, they're apostates who defile your religion."

But on an intellectual level, I don't buy any of it. Our enemies are clearly jihadists and Islamists. And one could easily, if they felt so motivated, find the justification for their actions in the Islamic holy books. Even the sanitation of the term terrorism strikes me as a sort of half-truth. Islamist terrorism, particularly the suicide bomber, is inextricably linked to the ideology of martyrdom and promises of virgins and paradise in the afterlife. So, in that sense, Islamist terrorism is, if not an ideology on its own, at least religiously motivated (if that's a distinction worth making, I personally think it's superfluous).

So my question is this: Do you think the Obama administration is being wholly strategic in its choice to frame the "Overseas Contingency Operation" this way, or do you think they really believe what they're saying?

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 10:39:05 AM

In before disco_stu tells us the world will be a happy place without religion.


Also, I think its a good strategy. Get people off of thinking Islam as a whole is the enemy and focus more on the physical hand full of people that are indeed the enemy.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 10:45:00 AM

Quote :

"Our enemies are clearly jihadists and Islamists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Quote :

"A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable."

5/27/2010 10:51:26 AM

You've got that a little mixed up there.

5/27/2010 10:58:39 AM

You're saying "jihadists and islamists" like it's a dirty word.

Yes, technically the people who we are fighting a war against are suffering a spiritual crisis and are followers of Islam, but that doesn't make "jihad" and "Islam" a bad thing at all.

We could also say that they're all owners of pants and wearers of mustaches.

5/27/2010 11:01:45 AM

^^^

Quote :

""my brief Wikipedia-ing doesn't support this argument""

5/27/2010 11:05:43 AM

I think they're taking exactly the right approach.

I get that you don't like religion, but you're seriously suggesting that the US should be at war with Islam. No, I don't think the war on terror includes anti-Islamism.

5/27/2010 11:06:46 AM

^^

I'm just providing a citation instead of saying "That's a fallacy of composition."

5/27/2010 11:07:25 AM

Quote :

"We could also say that they're all owners of pants and wearers of mustaches."

You foul-mouthed bigot!

5/27/2010 11:07:55 AM

There's war. There's peace-time.
There's criminals. There's non-criminals.
That's it.
There is no such thing as a "terrorist"... they are just criminals.
That said, is it wrong to use the military to combat crime? Perhaps not....

Quote :

"Fallacy_of_composition"

Kind of like when the [liberal] media summarizes the tea partiers as being pro-life, racist, religious, right-wing extremists...

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 11:08:11 AM

The terms "jihadist" and "Islamist" do not refer to people facing inner struggles or people following Islam. They refer to people involved in outward struggles against infidels and people devoted to the spread of political Islam.

Quote :

"I get that you don't like religion, but you're seriously suggesting that the US should be at war with Islam."

I'm suggesting we should be at war with jihadist and Islamist terrorists. We should certainly resist Islamist movements and Islamist regimes, but I don't think there's any controversial about my opposition to totalitarian theocracies.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 11:10:40 AM

Those are words made up by the Republican party to label the people we're supposed to hate and fear, really.

5/27/2010 11:13:07 AM

That's rich.

5/27/2010 11:14:37 AM

Quote :

"I'm suggesting we should be at war with jihadist and Islamist terrorists. We should certainly resist Islamist movements and Islamist regimes, but I don't think there's any controversial about my opposition to totalitarian theocracies. "

Quote :

"Islamist terrorism, particularly the suicide bomber, is inextricably linked to the ideology of martyrdom and promises of virgins and paradise in the afterlife."

It seemed like you wanted the US to militarily oppose the mysticism of Islam, not the spread of totalitarian regimes.

5/27/2010 11:19:49 AM

I think we should be opposed to the doctrine of martyrdom, yes. Especially when it takes the form of massacring innocent people, mostly Muslims, all over the globe.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 11:23:32 AM

Maybe one day in the far future, but to take that stance today would vastly undermine relations with Islamic countries.

5/27/2010 11:31:36 AM

We already do take that stance. And its a good thing we do (could you imagine supporting it? or being undecided on it?). And by the way, which countries do you think are supportive of martyrdom?

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 11:56:41 AM

Thanks to solinari's joke thread, you can't even reference Wikipedia when you're referring to something abstract like logical fallacies without some dipshit like stillrolling thinking he's clever.

gg, solinari.

And golovko, if you don't want me to post in a thread, stop summoning me.

5/27/2010 1:12:30 PM

^ yeap, you caught me. could barely get that post in while I was rolling on the floor at my own thought process. wikipedia "sarcasm"...clown

5/27/2010 2:05:31 PM

^^its inevitable that you will post in a thread that has something to do with religion. I wouldn't say I'm doing the summoning but more so the thread topic.

5/27/2010 2:17:29 PM

^^^^You weren't talking about opposing just martyrdom, or any specific evils of Islam in your OP. You clearly conveyed that you wanted to oppose Islam itself.

Quote :

"Our enemies are clearly jihadists and Islamists"

5/27/2010 5:38:30 PM

I think it's a great move that restores Reagan's ideal of the US being the "shining city on the hill."

They may use religion to motivate their extremist to terrorism, but we don't have to stoop to that level to motivate our citizens to support anti-terror efforts.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 7:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2010 7:24:17 PM

Lumex:

Jihadism and Islamism are not synonymous with Islam. They are elements, or offshoots (opinion varies), of Islam. One can be critical of Islamism without being critical of Islam. I happen to be critical of both, but I acknowledge the distinction.



[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 8:54:30 AM

They just hate our freedums

5/28/2010 11:04:09 AM

...and we're back to semantics

5/28/2010 11:16:05 AM

It isn't, though. You conflated the terms and made it sound like I said something completely different from what I actually said. So, if anything, you're the one playing semantics.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 11:21:48 AM

Quote :

"Our enemies are clearly jihadists and Islamists. And one could easily, if they felt so motivated, find the justification for their actions in the Islamic holy books."

Quote :

"the suicide bomber, is inextricably linked to the ideology of martyrdom and promises of virgins and paradise in the afterlife. "

Quote :

"So, in that sense, Islamist terrorism is, if not an ideology on its own, at least religiously motivated"

You referenced Islam as a religion 3 times. There isn't anything about politics; you're focusing on the religion. Aint nuthin bein conflated.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2010 11:44:48 AM

They are derivatives of Islam. They are based on the Islamic holy texts. That doesn't mean they represent the whole of the Islamic world, or Islam, which is what you are suggesting by conflating the terms.

At the risk of breaking our new taboo:

"Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

"Salafist jihadism (also Salafi jihadism) is a school of thought of Salafi Muslims who support violent jihad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism_jihadism

"Islam is the Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of the one, incomparable God, and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's demonstrations and real-life examples (called the Sunnah, collected through narration of his companions in collections of Hadith)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 11:55:36 AM

Quote :

""Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.""

Islamism is not an Islamic term (i.e., it is not found in Islam), BUT if that's the Western definition of Islamism, that's the definition of Islam.

Islam IS both a religion and a political system as laid down in all of its sources.

5/28/2010 7:34:46 PM

Quote :

"Islam IS both a religion and a political system as laid down in all of its sources."

I agree. However, as you're certainly aware, not all religious people take their holy texts literally. I would say that a majority of Jews and Christians, for example, write off large swaths of their holy texts as something less than literal truth, or choose to elevate some aspects of their holy texts over others. But we don't stop calling them Christians and Jews (nor do they stop referring to themselves as such). Whether this is intellectually honest is a legitimate question. But the fact is that is does happen, and in the case of proponents of Islamism, I would say such reform is at least preferable.

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 7:57:07 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/11/afghan-taliban-hang-year-old-boy-punish-family/

6/11/2010 11:23:04 AM

Quote :

"they are just criminals."

I would argue otherwise. They are not just common criminals. Nor are they really the same thing as your common terrorist. You are labeling them simply "criminals" because they don't fit well with our legal system, and labeling them "criminals" carries an implication for how you believe they should be prosecuted under our laws. Fair enough, as long as you (1) understand that it really isn't the case at all--you're just using that verbiage to reflect your political ideologies regarding human rights and civil liberties, and (2) understand that crimes are something that are largely dealt with after they are committed, not proactively engaged against in the sense that military action is taken against an enemy in anticipation of his future actions.

Al Qaeda is a military with long-term strategic objectives, who happens to be a non-state actor, although it does not fit the definition of a "military" as defined and protected under the Geneva Conventions. That creates a shitload of legal dilemmas, but let's treat the legal debate as a separate issue, and not allow it to influence our understanding of what Al Qaeda is.

6/11/2010 12:33:03 PM

While we're at it:

Quote :

" Young Afghan suicide bomber approached wedding guests The boy, dressed in white and thought to be no older than 13, appeared amid the din of a wedding party in a small southern Afghan village and walked up to within 15 feet of a cluster of tables where everyone was eating. As he prepared to detonate his suicide bomb vest, the gathering flew into a panic. "Everyone immediately tried to escape," said Abdullah Jan, a guest at the wedding. But there was no time. The boy's suicide vest packed with explosives detonated, killing more than 40 people and wounding at least 80, said Zemarai Khan, a local police chief who was at the wedding and witnessed the attack."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-wedding-20100611,0,5767263.story

But don't think too much on this. The Taliban is just a legitimate band of freedom fighters saving their country from Western imperialism.

Oh, and let's not forget to point out that the United States military does stuff this bad, like, every day practically (thank you wikileaks)!

[Edited on June 11, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2010 1:40:56 PM

Quote :

"I would argue otherwise. They are not just common criminals. Nor are they really the same thing as your common terrorist. You are labeling them simply "criminals" because they don't fit well with our legal system, and labeling them "criminals" carries an implication for how you believe they should be prosecuted under our laws. Fair enough, as long as you (1) understand that it really isn't the case at all--you're just using that verbiage to reflect your political ideologies regarding human rights and civil liberties, and (2) understand that crimes are something that are largely dealt with after they are committed, not proactively engaged against in the sense that military action is taken against an enemy in anticipation of his future actions. Al Qaeda is a military with long-term strategic objectives, who happens to be a non-state actor, although it does not fit the definition of a "military" as defined and protected under the Geneva Conventions. That creates a shitload of legal dilemmas, but let's treat the legal debate as a separate issue, and not allow it to influence our understanding of what Al Qaeda is."

I never said they were "common criminals", but they are criminals. Period. They are not soldiers, nor are they "enemy combatants" or "jihadists" or some other bullshit. I'm labeling them criminals because that's all they are. Crimes are also, as you said, dealt with proactively. I never said the military shouldn't combat or attempt to prevent crime. However, this need to be proactive doesn't make the criminals anything other than criminals. We're proactive against all kinds of murders and other crimes. Perhaps sometimes the military is needed, but that doesn't make it "war" and it doesn't make the criminals something other than just criminals. As for the legal dilemmas, either the military starts obeying every single rule and law that applies to you, or you and the entire US government completely lose your justification behind supporting the "rule of law". If you support or tolerate the military breaking the law, you can no longer advocate the rule of law in general. Period.

Quote :

"Jihadists, Islamists"

I'm more worried about the "Crusadists" and "Christianists" in the Bush and Obama administrations.

Quote :

"The Taliban is just a legitimate band of freedom fighters saving their country from Western imperialism."

Exactly.
I honestly don't think people like theDuke866 realize just how wrong it is to support our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, or our slaughter in Afghanistan. I wish theDuke866 and other military types realized just how much nearly everyone in the world hates them, and that the hatred is justified because our military has turned into a lawless, neo-colonial, imperialist gang. Have fun at your military events, theDuke866... those are the only people that don't hate you.

[Edited on June 12, 2010 at 6:24 AM. Reason : ]

6/12/2010 6:04:43 AM

haha

6/12/2010 6:28:21 AM

Nah... just kidding. You know I love you.... lol

But really, though -- Why do we need something other than individual criminals and enemy nations?
Why create "terrorists", "jihadists" or "enemy combatants"? We don't need that crap -- it's just politics.

6/12/2010 6:50:00 AM

That's what I'm saying...you can call them what you want, and the debate surrounding how to employ our legal system against them is legitimate, but they are not just criminals. Our involvement with them is absolutely a war, and it should be viewed through the lens of geopolitics, not law enforcement.

Timothy McVeigh was a criminal. These guys are something very different.

6/12/2010 7:05:37 AM

Actually, no. War is declared by Congress. Our involvement is illegal and unnecessary. And they are just criminals.
(This is when you say some bullshit like, "we had other wars without acts of Congress, so blah blah...")

A litterbug is a criminal. Timothy McVeigh is something very different, but still just a criminal.
These guys are something even more different, but still just criminals.

6/12/2010 7:13:29 AM

OK, look, that's still a separate issue. I do agree that Congress should declare wars--I'm generally an advocate for the Constitution and limited government, remember (albeit more moderate and pragmatism-driven, and less of an ideologue, than you are). Hell, I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution...against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Also, I've stated twice now that how we handle legal prosecution, etc, is a separate issue. If you want to call them "criminals" in order to maintain compatibility with your view on how that issue should be handled, go for it.

...but you are, as best as I can tell, fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of Al Qaeda and therefore how we should deal with them. Whether or not you agree with Congress' dereliction of their duties regarding the Constitution, or what stance you take on the legal debate surrounding what to do with individuals caught on the battlefield or engaging in "acts of terror" or whatever, I can understand. However, the only thing that Al Qaeda has to do with Timothy McVeigh is that they both blew up buildings, and we would be dooming ourselves to failure if took such a simplistic view of our enemy.

Al Qaeda is not even a Hamas or whatever. I'll even venture to say that they have more to do with state actors in some ways. They have strategic-level outlooks and goals, capable intel/counterintel, etc. They engage in geopolitics not much unlike a state actor.

6/12/2010 7:41:12 AM

There are no terrorists or acts of terror -- there are criminals, crime, soldiers of a nation, and war. That's it. Timothy McVeigh is a criminal. Al Qaeda is a group of criminals -- organized crime, if you will. Having strategic-level outlooks and goals, having capable intel, or engaging in geopolitics doesn't make a group of criminals anything other than a group of criminals -- just more dangerous ones. Timothy McVeigh is more dangerous than a litterbug, and members of Al Qaeda are more dangerous than Timothy McVeigh, but they are all individual criminals.

6/12/2010 7:57:51 AM

So if there are some criminals that are worse than others, because of a specific set of reasons that are consistent with the definition of the word “terrorist,” why do you insist on not calling them terrorists?

6/12/2010 11:21:46 AM

He's making false distinctions (or, more accurately, non-distinctions). They are criminals, sure. They're also soldiers, militias, enemy combatants, and jihadists. These labels are not the product of some propaganda office at the Pentagon; these are the terms these organizations use to accurately describe themselves.

6/12/2010 5:43:50 PM

^^
Because that word is political. It's a part of an agenda to redefine law as we know it.
If it were a simple word like "arsonist", no big deal. The idea of an arsonist being "worse than others" is obviously invalid -- because all victimization is relative. But "terror" is an idea that pushes a whole new paradigm of crime that's entirely political. Don't pretend you don't know what's at stake here.

6/12/2010 7:09:20 PM

In other words, exactly what I said in my posts.

...except that I don't think it's about arguing that it's "worse", so much as it's arguing that at least in certain cases, it needs to be handled differently.

6/13/2010 3:32:14 PM