What's the right World Islam policy/strategy?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Why are Islamic people happier in non-Islamic countries? It seems to be a stable pattern.

J

Not at all, people flee violence. Period.

[TranaGreg]

I believe that there is a relationship between the recent escalation in violence in the west and the impacts ISIS/ISIL/daesh/whatever are feeling from the latest offensives (in case anyone hasn't been paying attention lately they've been hit pretty hard, lost some important territory and some key leaders). If the west can weather this, I expect things to settle down. However I appreciate that if I lived in France I might feel different.

[baldgriff]

Is it at all possible the when we see video of a Radical Islamic leader stating that they intend on destroying the West - that they may actually mean it?

Is it possible that these are attacks not based on socio-economic factors - but rather strict adherence to a religious doctrine? One whose goal is to proselytize by any means necessary and ultimately enforce is form of law on all people?

When does it get to the point where it is not intolerant to question the motivations and behaviors of the Radical Islamists and have an open and honest discussion about it? Are Maher and Harris right about their concerns regarding Islamism and Jihadism?

[B-Fly]

Is it at all possible the when we see video of a Radical Islamic leader stating that they intend on destroying the West - that they may actually mean it?

Is it possible that these are attacks not based on socio-economic factors - but rather strict adherence to a religious doctrine? One whose goal is to proselytize by any means necessary and ultimately enforce is form of law on all people?

When does it get to the point where it is not intolerant to question the motivations and behaviors of the Radical Islamists and have an open and honest discussion about it? Are Maher and Harris right about their concerns regarding Islamism and Jihadism?

I don't think anyone has ever said it's "intolerant" to question the motivations and ideologies of terrorists and the people who promote/support terrorism. The only debate has been over whether and how effectively to distinguish between those with a radical and violent ideology and the rest of the Muslim world, right? If we declare a global faith war between the West and Islam and make our decisions based on that mindset, does that help make the West safer, or does that play into the hands of ISIS and other radical Jihaddists, help them to recruit and to marginalize moderates/modernizers, and make us less safe? The presumptive Democratic nominee said yesterday that, yes, we are at war with radical Jihaddists, albeit a non-conventional war because it's not one we're waging against any recognized nation/government/army. I think there's a lot more common ground between the American right and the American left about the reality of and the need to confront global terrorists/Jihaddists than either side likes to admit in the bi-polar rhetorical gamesmanship of our political moment. The Obama Administration has been waging a very active war against terrorists/Jihaddists since its inception with a whole lot of high-profile kills and, yes, plenty of collateral damage. That still leaves open questions and differences of opinion about what we as America should say and do about domestic security, defense of allies and foreign interests, immigration policies/refugees, collaboration with Islamic nations whose leaders violate human rights and engage in unhelpful rhetoric against Israel and the West but either help us combat terrorists or at least provide some stability in nations where ISIS would happily fill any power void, etc.

[baldgriff]

Sam Harris, Bill Maher and many other lefties have taken huge hits and been labeled as "intolerant" regarding their concerns and discussions regarding radical Islam or just discussing Islam and its apparent conflict to "Western" though and civilization.

While there may be an active war against terrorists, the Obama administration has for the most part refused to say the phrase radical Islam, or even make reference to it being a factor in a number of the recent mass terror attacks nationally and internationally. Not naming your enemy is like not being willing to say Voldemort - until you face up to what the enemy may be and name it - you really cant beat it because at some level you are either afraid of it, or unwilling to admit what it is.

[DMT]

Sam Harris, Bill Maher and many other lefties have taken huge hits and been labeled as "intolerant" regarding their concerns and discussions regarding radical Islam or just discussing Islam and its apparent conflict to "Western" though and civilization.

While there may be an active war against terrorists, the Obama administration has for the most part refused to say the phrase radical Islam, or even make reference to it being a factor in a number of the recent mass terror attacks nationally and internationally. Not naming your enemy is like not being willing to say Voldemort - until you face up to what the enemy may be and name it - you really cant beat it because at some level you are either afraid of it, or unwilling to admit what it is.

Obama responded directly to this and exposed it for the nonsensical Republican talking point that it is.

[baldgriff]

You may buy his line - that does not mean that I or others have to.

If you are a leader of a group that is being attacked and dont recognize to your group who your enemy is - you will never successfully defeat that enemy. This is the unwilling to admit what it is aspect of it.

[umjewman]

Sam Harris, Bill Maher and many other lefties have taken huge hits and been labeled as "intolerant" regarding their concerns and discussions regarding radical Islam or just discussing Islam and its apparent conflict to "Western" though and civilization.

While there may be an active war against terrorists, the Obama administration has for the most part refused to say the phrase radical Islam, or even make reference to it being a factor in a number of the recent mass terror attacks nationally and internationally. Not naming your enemy is like not being willing to say Voldemort - until you face up to what the enemy may be and name it - you really cant beat it because at some level you are either afraid of it, or unwilling to admit what it is.

They didn't beat Voldemort because they started saying his name. They beat him because they figured out all that horcrux mumbo jumbo. It had nothing to do with saying his name.

I'm so glad we're finally talking about Harry Potter around these parts. I've been waiting for so long!

[B-Fly]

You may buy his line - that does not mean that I or others have to.

If you are a leader of a group that is being attacked and dont recognize to your group who your enemy is - you will never successfully defeat that enemy. This is the unwilling to admit what it is aspect of it.

He and Clinton say radical Jihaddists or radical terrorists rather than radical Islam. It's a strategic distinction that, yes, aims not to feed into the idea that the US is at war with Islam, the global religion. But to suggest that it reflects a failure to recognize the enemy strikes me as a political talking point rather than a fair reading of the language tactic being used. It gets back to my original post and the entire thrust of this thread. Declaring a global faith war is one possible approach to this, but it's hardly the only one that can or should be viewed as recognizing the nature of the problem.

[baldgriff]

I guess I have spent to much time listening to Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz discussing this issue. I grab the Voldemort analogy from Maajid. Here is a guy that was in jail as a radical Islamist and has changed his world outlook. Hes lived in the world of the jihadist and understands it. I guess I prefer his experience and first hand understanding over some politically vetted line of bullshit spewed out to the masses by a guy serving as the figurehead of a political party.

Edit to clarify - Maajid was not a jihadist, but a radical Islamist.

[baldgriff]

[senorsheep]

Dump our weak, ineffectual European allies and join forces with sh!tkickers like Russia and China who, unburdened by politically correct nonsense, will actually fight this battle to win, no holds barred.

[Lucky]

I guess I have spent to much time listening to Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz discussing this issue. I grab the Voldemort analogy from Maajid. Here is a guy that was in jail as a radical Islamist and has changed his world outlook. Hes lived in the world of the jihadist and understands it. I guess I prefer his experience and first hand understanding over some politically vetted line of bullshit spewed out to the masses by a guy serving as the figurehead of a political party.

Edit to clarify - Maajid was not a jihadist, but a radical Islamist.

And you care what we call him?

Best thing you have said is that you have spent too much time listening to this guy. Whether it is Voldemort or Beetlejuice, saying the name is not going to get the job done. It's silly politics played by non-serious people. You said you don't have to buy Obama's line in this regard...my wager is that you didn't see it and haven't heard it. Treat yourself, and then watch a clip of someone criticize him for not saying the magic words.

Incantations and spells aren't going to get us out of this mess. People who aren't distracted by shiny objects might. I don't know that much about Nawaz, but Sam Harris is as much of a philosopher as my wife's Morkie.

[baldgriff]

Ive seen Obama's reasoning and frankly find it just a political line of bull primarily used in order to not offend individuals of Islamic belief.

I find Sam Harris fairly thoughtful and Im guessing is way more rational and thoughtful than your morkie.

[B-Fly]

Ive seen Obama's reasoning and frankly find it just a political line of bull primarily used in order to not offend individuals of Islamic belief.

Which I guess means you've already decided that there's no tactical value to avoiding unnecessary offense of individuals of Islamic belief. I guess we disagree there.

I think the GOP's attack on the President's use of "radical Jihad" instead of "radical Islam" is just a political line of bull primarily used to derive political advantage from xenophobia, and that there's no practical, tactical value to choosing a phrase more likely to offend moderate Muslims.