Report: McMaster Takes Issue With White House ‘Islamic Terrorism’ Mantra
VOA News
The U.S. administration’s new national security adviser has reportedly told his staff that Muslims who carry out terrorist acts are corrupting Islam, a departure from an ideological position held by other senior advisers to President Donald Trump.
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster told members of the National Security Council that the use of the term "radical Islamic terrorism" was counterproductive because the actions of terrorists are "un-Islamic," according to the New York Times newspaper.
McMaster's remarks were reportedly made Thursday at his first "all hands" staff meeting, according to people who attended the meeting.
His comments contradict language frequently used by the president and McMaster's predecessor, Michael Flynn, who stepped down after misleading administration officials about contacts with a Russian diplomat.
The remarks may be an early sign McMaster could distance the council from the ideological views of Flynn.
McMaster's language is more consistent with the positions of former U.S. presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both were careful to disassociate terrorist acts from the Islamic faith out of concern, in part, that the U.S. needed Muslim allies to help combat terrorism.
The extent of McMaster's influence on this issue remains to be seen in a White House where several top presidential advisers have a different perception of Islam. Chief strategist Stephen Bannon, for example, has warned of an impending battle between the Judeo-Christian world and Islam.
The differences in positions held by White House advisers could be exposed publicly if the Senate Armed Services Committee decides to hold a confirmation hearing for McMaster. The national security adviser does not require Senate confirmation, but it must vote to approve McMaster's three-star rank in a new position.
Committee Chairman John McCain has not said if he will hold a hearing.
Comments
TC..ever notice just how now Trump and his merry band in the WH are being used by first AQ and now Russia.....in support of their own particular brand of narrative....
1. Bannon's photo was plastered on the main AQ online media newspaper and his being against Muslims and Islam were the main topic....
2. When brother Trump calls to boycott
A poster with Trump being used in an anti NATO campaign....by proRussian political party....
When brother #Trump calls to boycott #Montenegro
https://m.cdm.me/lgxl7
Poster is being used to underline the Trump calls that NATO is obsolete....
I get tired of this argument. The only question is: "Does using the phrase 'Radical Islamic Terrorist' further our information Operations Campaign, or the Enemy's Information Operations Campaign. In this case, it assists the Enemy's by verifying and reinforcing their narrative that this is a war between Islam and the West. Therefore, it should not be used. Terms like "ISIS Terrorist" or "al Qaeda Terrorist" separates and isolates the terrorist from the larger Muslim community. It separated them out as something not Islamic. This is not rocket science. I fail to see why there is even a debate.
BTW, Gorka saying that the terrorist were "jihadists" is also not helpful. Jihad is a sacred duty of all Muslims and has a positive connotation similar to the connotation that "Martyr" does for Christians. Jihadist should never be used in conjunction with a terrorist, least you raise their status to that of a Christian Martyr or Saint. Again, not rocket science. Basic Information Operations.
Are CBP..INS and Customs going rouge on non Muslims.....????
1. we had a well known French professor deported back to France after TEN hours of questioning and he was headed to a University speech....and he was no Muslim...
2. we had a 70year old grandmother questioned for hours before she was also deported...not a Muslim....
3. WE had the Australian CIA Director aggressively searched and questioned EVEN on a diplomatic passport....he was a non Muslim...
NOW this....
PEN America: artists, writers, poets, cultural and intellectual figures worried about making trips to the U.S.
https://pen.org/interrogation-us-border/
AND they are non Muslims...
BUT maybe they were "hidden radical Islamic terrorists"..including the Australian CIA Director....???
Azor..since when does Trump care about "honor killings" since it is not a radical Muslim terrorist attack on US citizens....
Curious. New Trump order requires US govt to compile and make public the number of "honor killings" in the US.
SO is he now going to release the daily suicide statistics of AFG and Iraqi US military veterans.....
WHICH might actually shock many Ameicans.....or black on black violence??
BUT WAIT..EVEN better..how many American husbands kill their wives and or girl friends.....that might be actaully an eye opener.....
New #TravelBan has same flaws – list of countries arbitrary, effect counter-productive, & real target is not security but faith
Charles Lister
Verified account
@Charles_Lister
This is not a joke.
- This terrorism "expert" sat in the White House, thinks using "Radical Islamic…" is the "key" to defeating #terrorism.
Charles Lister
Sebastian Gorka DrG
Verified account
@SebGorka
INCORRECT
After 8 years of obfuscation and disastrous Counterterrorism policies those 3 words are key to Victory against Global Jihadism.
Sebastian
FOX & friends
Verified account
"There's nothing magic about those three words. They're not a strategy, they're a talking point." -Marie Harf on 'radical Islamic terrorism'
ProPublica
Verified account
@ProPublica
Steve Bannon loves to cite a racist novel that portrays Muslims as invading hordes & white Christians as heroes:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58b75206e4b0284854b3dc03 …
Again Azor...just refer to the recently released/leaked DHC intel analysis that even Trump asked for which did not conclude exactly what Trump wanted it to conclude...thus his argumentation is not quite valid...the PDF if one took the time to read was very specific no Muslim terrorist threat from immigrants from the seven now six named countries...
Secondly there should not even be a debate over radical Islamic or in-Islamic...in every swinging ethnic population including white Americans there is statistically seen at least 1% willing to commit violence...
So what do you call violent prone white Americans un-American or radical Americans? Or radical Catholic or un-Protestants.....?
Valid question.....
The problem is that neither and I am assuming neither of us are Muslims...
You will notice that I have often written about the need for a Islamic Reformation and that it would be hard based on the rather decentralized way religious interpretations are concluded in say Qom....or Damascus or Baghdad or in Pakistan or Indonesia.....
In Iraq the local Sunni communities were often led by Imams with little to no formal education (could not even read or write Arabic) but had learned the Koran...Sunnahs..Shuras by rote thus were considered the "learned" and concluded that they could led their local Sunni communities.
What is interesting is now in Berlin and it will be a Muslim mosque model across Germany and is being supported by the German Central Muslim Conference...there is the creation of a new wave of mosques being built around the following.....
1. allowing women to pray together with men
2. accepting the LGBT Muslim community
3. dedicated to the non violent open debate for modernization of Islam to match the needs of the Muslim communities in the 21st century
Interestingly enough is that this movement is bein driven by Syrian refugees who find the current German Sunni mosques to be to conservative as many Syrians are secular by nature..this development ties into what CrowBat had written about local governments being driven by FSA units...
Interestingly enough is the question of women praying together with men and the support to the LGBT community....BOTH actually supported in early and middle writings by Mohammed himself but then overturned by the current global Sunni religious universities....
BTW the Berlin Mosque will be led by an openly gay Imam....who has been leading a Hamburg Sunni mosque.
Also a second BTW...the mosque name will be a combination of a leading Muslim liberal thinker from the 1500s and Goethe...why Goethe...actually as a German he was seriously into Islamic writings and thoughts...little know fact....
Outlaw,
The debate between us is over the semantics of what to call the jihadist terrorism in the West, and specifically whether or not it is "helpful" to call it "radical Islamic" or "un-Islamic".
This isn't a debate on the history of massacres going back to the spate of anarchist terrorism or on mass shootings.
Nor is it a debate on the merits or lack thereof of Trump's proposed temporary visitation and immigration ban, which excludes most Muslim-majority and officially Muslim countries.
If you are determined to include Oklahoma City, I'll raise you New York.
Now do you have any counter-arguments that specifically deal with the statistical data I provided?
BUT the far more interesting figure is were any of this attacks carried out by Muslim immigrants from the proposed seven nation Trump ban and or were they carried out by Green Card holders and or actual US citizens???
The next interesting fact is what is the breakout percentage wise of all anti Semitic acts of violence and cemetery desecration or bomb threats carried out by Muslims residing in the US.
AND what is the percentage of Muslims burning their own mosques....and how many such attacks have occurred since the Trump election..actually let's go back for a total of five years and see the numbers...
Next percentage is far more interesting... how many social media sites and actual blog sites...radio/TV stations are being driven by the white nationalist and or white supremacist side of the house vs....similar Muslim sites being driven in the US by Muslims are exactly how many?
Followed by what are the leading US radical Muslim media outlets that formally publish a newspaper...such as The Klansman or Die Storm?
This whole debate could escalate into how many US Italians support say the Italian Mafia...or how many Russians residing in the US with Green Cards are active members of a Russian crime family....
AND we tend to forget a time in US history that it did not pay to be an Irish Catholic immigrant in the US......
BUT I go back to my original comment...while everyone is discussing just how Muslims are killing US citizens in the US after immigrating to the US.....
WE Americans simply forget exactly how many US citizens are killed by legal firearms every single year.....year after year after year....
BUT I see no drive to forbid guns and or to drive US gun manufacturers out of the US..BUT Muslims....right on......
McVeigh a white single male Desert Storm Army vet bombed Oklahoma City killing over 200 including children...we did not see a ban on single white former Army males from entering the US...notice the distinct difference?
BUT WAIT...that does not count????
Let's now even get into that fake myth of "sharia law" taking over the US legal system....
Last time I checked there has been not a single individual placed into a State of Federal Prison due to "sharia law"...and no hands cut off either...or anyone flogged....
Outlaw 09,
Muslim supremacist terrorism in the United States since 9/11:
7 fatal attacks
111 fatalities (excl. perpetrators)
Muslim share of population: 1%
Anti-Muslim hate crimes and terrorism in the United States since 9/11:
6 fatal attacks
17 fatalities (excl. perpetrators)
Non-Muslim share of population: 99%
Trump primary voters' share of population: 4.30%
Azor....Muslim on Muslim violence as actually since I come from Texas...white on Muslim violence....
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/four-mosques-burn-as-2017-begins?…
Four Mosques Have Burned In Seven Weeks — Leaving Many Muslims and Advocates Stunned
“The short answer is we haven’t seen anything like this in the past.”
On January 7, the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, in Austin, Texas, which had been under construction, caught on fire. A week later, on January 14, the Islamic Center of Eastside, in Bellevue, Washington, burned.
Two weeks after that, on January 27, several hours after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, a fire destroyed the Islamic Center of Victoria, in Texas.
Then, this past Friday, February 24, a small blaze broke out at the front entrance of the Daarus Salaam Mosque, near Tampa, Florida.
Authorities have ruled that three of the four fires were caused by arson. An official at the Travis County Fire Marshal told BuzzFeed News that the investigation into the cause of the fire at the Islamic Center of Lake Travis remains open.
“We’ve never seen four mosques burned within seven weeks of each other,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups around the country. “It’s part of a whole series of dramatic attacks on Muslims.”
The mosque fires come amid increased fear about hate crimes against minority religious groups. In recent weeks, scores of bomb threats were called into Jewish community centers and schools around the country and graveyards in Jewish cemeteries in three states were vandalized. On Sunday, somebody threw a rock through a window of the Masjid Abu Bakr mosque in Denver. In Redmond, Washington, vandals destroyed the Muslim Association of Puget Sound mosque’s entrance sign on two occasions within two months of the election. Two days after the Inauguration, a woman shattered the windows of the Davis Islamic Center, in California, and left strips of raw bacon on a door handle. In January, a white nationalist fatally shot six people at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Last week, a white man shot two Indian men, one fatally, at a Kansas bar after making racial slurs, questioning their immigration status, and shouting, “Get out of my country.”
“The short answer is we haven’t seen anything like this in the past,” Potok said, referring to the overall surge in reported hate crimes across the country. “This is my 18th year here and I haven’t seen anything remotely like this.”
To have three mosque fires ruled arson within six weeks is highly unusual, said Corey Saylor, director of the Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “In normal times, I will see one to two mosque incidents of any type per month, and rarely is it arson,” he said. “I can tell you for sure I have not seen levels of violence like this since I started tracking this stuff” in 2009.
The fire at the Islamic Center of Lake Travis — which nearly two months later is still under investigation — destroyed the partially constructed frame. Community members began raising funds for the building four years earlier.
“There are a lot more people who are in support of us building this back again than people who oppose us but it takes one crazy guy to do something,” Shakeel Rashed, an executive board member of the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, told the Texas Tribune in January.
“Everybody believes we need to be more vigilant. When we start reconstruction we definitely want to plan the security of the place better, have more cameras,” Rashed said.
In Bellevue, Washington, six days before the inauguration, surveillance cameras caught a man walking toward the Islamic Center of Eastside while carrying a backpack and a gallon jug shortly before 2:45 am, the Seattle Times reported. Less than a minute later, the mosque was on fire. Investigators at the scene found a melted gallon jug and a gas can. Officers arrested Isaac Wayne Wilson, who remained at the scene, smelled of gasoline, and confessed to setting the blaze, according to police. Authorities said there was no evidence it was a hate crime. A year earlier, Wilson, who has a history of mental illness, had been convicted of misdemeanor assault after an incident at the mosque.
Hours after President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, someone intentionally set fire to the Islamic Center of Victoria in Texas in the middle of the night, according to investigators, who have yet to identify a suspect. The blaze caused more than $500,000 in damage, and completely destroyed the 16-year-old mosque, shaking the Muslim American community in south Texas. The mosque’s president, Dr. Shahid Hashmi, told the Texas Tribune his community would forgive whoever set the fire, but added, “there’s no way we can forget. There’s no way our children can forget.”
The fire at the Daarus Salaam Mosque in Thonotosassa, Florida, on Friday was at least the third time in seven months that a mosque in the Tampa area had been set on fire, following incidents at the Islamic Education Center in July and the Masjid Omar mosque in August.
Azor....Muslim on Muslim violence as actually since I come from Texas...white on Muslim violence....
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/four-mosques-burn-as-2017-begins?…
Four Mosques Have Burned In Seven Weeks — Leaving Many Muslims and Advocates Stunned
“The short answer is we haven’t seen anything like this in the past.”
On January 7, the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, in Austin, Texas, which had been under construction, caught on fire. A week later, on January 14, the Islamic Center of Eastside, in Bellevue, Washington, burned.
Two weeks after that, on January 27, several hours after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, a fire destroyed the Islamic Center of Victoria, in Texas.
Then, this past Friday, February 24, a small blaze broke out at the front entrance of the Daarus Salaam Mosque, near Tampa, Florida.
Authorities have ruled that three of the four fires were caused by arson. An official at the Travis County Fire Marshal told BuzzFeed News that the investigation into the cause of the fire at the Islamic Center of Lake Travis remains open.
“We’ve never seen four mosques burned within seven weeks of each other,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups around the country. “It’s part of a whole series of dramatic attacks on Muslims.”
The mosque fires come amid increased fear about hate crimes against minority religious groups. In recent weeks, scores of bomb threats were called into Jewish community centers and schools around the country and graveyards in Jewish cemeteries in three states were vandalized. On Sunday, somebody threw a rock through a window of the Masjid Abu Bakr mosque in Denver. In Redmond, Washington, vandals destroyed the Muslim Association of Puget Sound mosque’s entrance sign on two occasions within two months of the election. Two days after the Inauguration, a woman shattered the windows of the Davis Islamic Center, in California, and left strips of raw bacon on a door handle. In January, a white nationalist fatally shot six people at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Last week, a white man shot two Indian men, one fatally, at a Kansas bar after making racial slurs, questioning their immigration status, and shouting, “Get out of my country.”
“The short answer is we haven’t seen anything like this in the past,” Potok said, referring to the overall surge in reported hate crimes across the country. “This is my 18th year here and I haven’t seen anything remotely like this.”
To have three mosque fires ruled arson within six weeks is highly unusual, said Corey Saylor, director of the Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “In normal times, I will see one to two mosque incidents of any type per month, and rarely is it arson,” he said. “I can tell you for sure I have not seen levels of violence like this since I started tracking this stuff” in 2009.
The fire at the Islamic Center of Lake Travis — which nearly two months later is still under investigation — destroyed the partially constructed frame. Community members began raising funds for the building four years earlier.
“There are a lot more people who are in support of us building this back again than people who oppose us but it takes one crazy guy to do something,” Shakeel Rashed, an executive board member of the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, told the Texas Tribune in January.
“Everybody believes we need to be more vigilant. When we start reconstruction we definitely want to plan the security of the place better, have more cameras,” Rashed said.
In Bellevue, Washington, six days before the inauguration, surveillance cameras caught a man walking toward the Islamic Center of Eastside while carrying a backpack and a gallon jug shortly before 2:45 am, the Seattle Times reported. Less than a minute later, the mosque was on fire. Investigators at the scene found a melted gallon jug and a gas can. Officers arrested Isaac Wayne Wilson, who remained at the scene, smelled of gasoline, and confessed to setting the blaze, according to police. Authorities said there was no evidence it was a hate crime. A year earlier, Wilson, who has a history of mental illness, had been convicted of misdemeanor assault after an incident at the mosque.
Hours after President Donald Trump signed the controversial executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, someone intentionally set fire to the Islamic Center of Victoria in Texas in the middle of the night, according to investigators, who have yet to identify a suspect. The blaze caused more than $500,000 in damage, and completely destroyed the 16-year-old mosque, shaking the Muslim American community in south Texas. The mosque’s president, Dr. Shahid Hashmi, told the Texas Tribune his community would forgive whoever set the fire, but added, “there’s no way we can forget. There’s no way our children can forget.”
The fire at the Daarus Salaam Mosque in Thonotosassa, Florida, on Friday was at least the third time in seven months that a mosque in the Tampa area had been set on fire, following incidents at the Islamic Education Center in July and the Masjid Omar mosque in August.
Azor...now tell me the internal US threat comes from Muslims and not white nationalist and or white supremacists who have a vast network of social media and radio/TV stations VS what does the US Muslim population control on social media and radio/TV?
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/busted-again-fox-caught-using-militant-…
Busted again: Fox caught using ‘militant Nazi’ collaborator as expert on Swedish violence
David Edwards
02 Mar 2017 at 10:02 ET
Sweden has become a topic of debate in American news media following Donald Trump's recent statements about the country. To support the assertion that CNN is whitewashing Sweden, the conservative news network Fox Business recently invited right-wing extremist Ingrid Carlqvist on the channel to give her views. Carlqvist's involvement with the Swedish far-right was not disclosed to the viewers.
"Well, CNN and other liberal media outlets reporting that there's no crisis in Sweden after President Trump mentioned crime in the country at Saturday night's rally. But take a look at these images," the Fox Business anchor says in the introduction to the segment, which aired on February 21.
In swedish
Känd svensk högerextremist blev expert i Fox-nyhetssändning
In the segment, images show torched cars in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby, and next the anchor introduces Ingrid Carlqvist:
"So what's the reality? Well, let's ask somebody who's on the ground there. Swedish columnist Ingrid Carlqvist joins us now from her home country."
Ingrid Carlqvist says in the segment that Sweden has reached a "critical mass" of immigrants that "don't love Sweden" and "don't love Swedish people".
The Fox Business anchor ends the interview by exclaiming: "Sweden is not Swedish anymore, oh my gosh."
What the viewers are never told is that Ingrid Carlqvist has been a central player in the anti-Muslim counter-jihad movement. Nor are the viewers made aware that she recently accused "representatives of the ethnic group of Jews" in Sweden of being behind Sweden's cultural diversity, a conspiracy theory that Swedish nazis have long promoted.
Carlqvist is known for her hard-line anti-Muslim views. In December 2016, on a podcast run by members of the violent nazi organization "Nordic Resistance Movement", she declared that she wants to drive out all Swedish Muslims from the country. (Radio Regeringen #28, 21 December 2016.)
She has previously written for the Gatestone Institute, an American think tank. Carlqvist parted ways with Gatestone last year.
In recent years, Ingrid Carlqvist has moved closer to the openly racist, white supremacist milieu in Sweden. She recently declared her willingness to collaborate with the Nordic Resistance Movement, a militant nazi group.
Last year she was one of the speakers at Stockholm's annual fascist conference "Identitarian Ideas". She also attended this year's conference, where a new alliance between the organizers and the American Alt-Right movement and Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute was announced. Spencer gained international notoriety after giving a speech in praise of Donald Trump in which he yelled "Hail Trump!", while large sections of the audience stretched out their right arms in a Hitler salute.
"Jews in the vanguard of Sweden's cruel transformation"
In February, during a presentation of her new book at a seminar in Gothenburg, she stated that the big problem wasn't just Muslims. It was also Jews.
"It pains me, believe me, to have to state this. But those who have been the vanguard of Sweden's cruel transformation into Absurdistan are Jews. In my naïvity, I have viewed Swedish Jews as entirely sympathetic to the fatherland. Presumably the majority is, but those who stubbornly and purposefully, in the 60s, claimed that Sweden was awful and had to change, were above all Jews."
Ingrid Carlqvist also declared that she considers those who advocate cultural diversity to be "traitors to the people" (folkförrädare) and that she looks forward to their being punished by a tribunal.
"They are traitors to the country (landsförrädare), they are traitors to the people (folkförrädare) and the eternal question is: Have they done this because they are really stupid or is it part of a diabolical plan to eradicate Europe?"
Carlqvist also discussed her theory of an underlying agenda behind cultural diversity.
"If a people is splintered and warring against each other […] it is easier to take control over a country," she said.
Defining Swedes as white and blue-eyed
Carlqvist does not just move in the same circles as white supremacists, but also expresses the same ideological convictions.
"Our country's population is homogeneous not just in terms of the race but also in many other respects," she asserted during her presentation in February.
To Carlqvist, Swedes are white and blue-eyed and, she claims, are a people under threat.
"About 17 percent of the world's population consists of white people. However, our polticians don't seem to care that we are getting fewer and fewer – on the contrary. The same politicians who speak of the importance of diversity are not the least interested in Swedes surviving as a people."
"No-one cares whether the children who are born here are Swedes or not. Being blue-eyed is not just an eye color, it is also a figure of speech meaning being naïve, and one can't help but wonder if it is related. Are we so blue-eyed that we cannot see we are getting exterminated?"
Ingrid Carlqvist is not the first Swede to be picked up by American media to confirm Donald Trump's view of Sweden as a country in crisis due to immigration. A Fox News interview with pundit Nils Bildt was recently the subject of controversy, as it was revealed the channel incorrectly presented Bildt as being a national security adviser in Sweden; in fact he was not.
BTW...remember that FOX used a non Swede in an interview to support Trump on the so called Swedish crime comments he made...
Outlaw,
But you haven't piled on. You continue to dodge my arguments.
The overarching point is that Islam has a problem with radicalization and radical Islam has a problem with supremacism, political violence and terrorism.
Muslims are far more prone to commit terrorism on behalf of their religion, and in the United States, the relative and absolute statistics are damning.
If "Islamophobia" were as serious as the alarmists claim, then one would expect Muslim deaths in "Islamophobic" attacks in the United States to be in the hundreds or thousands.
The statistical contrast between Muslim supremacist terrorism and anti-Muslim terrorism is even starker in Western Europe.
As for your twisting of my examples:
Firstly, any travelers from Northern Ireland should have been subject to special vetting in order to ensure that no paramilitary members enter the United States
Secondly, the same should be true for travelers from the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and people from Kashmir
Thirdly, those conflicts are localized, whereas Muslim supremacism seeks domination of all people everywhere
Azor...now to pile on....if you really read the just released DHS terrorist report that Trump thought would support his legal ban....
Tell me exactly how many US citizens have actually been killed by immigrant Muslims who deliberately entered the US to kill US non Muslim citizens from the listed seven countries....
Secondly...yes 2nd Amendment is in itself killing ACTUALLY far more Americans through gun violence and that yearly than all Muslim attacks on US soil since LONG before 9/11.
Heck in 2016 gun deaths via toddlers was 21.....
Even Bannon from the alt right has called as a Leninist though for the destruction of the "establish" which he changed at CPAC to "deconstruction"...two words same meaning...
Remember that yes right wing armed militias MIGHT be disorganized but here is the interesting point...disorganized yes BUT held together by an interesting social media and print media structure which supports their believe system...and it is forced against the Federal government....
Remember during the election a number of those groups swore a "fight" if Clinton "took their weapons away"...
Again reread your history and check just how many in say the area called Germany...how many of those citizens did not really care which religion won..they just wanted the killing to end....
So if we take your final comment at heart then we the US should have stopped all Catholics from entering the US during the IRA "wars"..OR we should have also forbid all Protestants as well...or say all Indian citizens for the Kashmir fighting or say or we should deport ALL US native Indians because they are now demanding a number of rights say recently running a pipeline straight through their territory without requesting permission and that by the US Army...that the US stripped them of....??
BTW...the number of actual armed right wing militias exceeds 1000...and they are growing in both numbers and are getting actually better organized...again due to social media and the net...
Firstly, the definition of "armed" in the United States is meaningless given the 2nd Amendment and the widespread proliferation of firearms capable of inflicting mass casualties.
Secondly, the number of actual groups supporting a particular ideology is also meaningless as it does not speak to total membership or armed strength. On the contrary, larger numbers of groups indicate disorganization. For instance, Protestant and Unionist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland outnumbered the Catholic Republican ones both in armed strength and the number of organizations, and yet they were far less effective than the PIRA.
Thirdly, 1% of the US population consists of Muslims, and yet jihadist terrorism has killed at least double the number of people in the United States, since 9/11, that "right wing" and "left wing" terrorism has combined. Moreover, attribution of terrorism as "left" or "right wing" is rather nebulous, given that these include totalitarians and libertarians, integrationists and separatists, supremacists and egalitarians.
By any relative or absolute measure, jihadi terrorism is a problem in the United States, and more Muslims will mean more jihadi terrorism.
Fourth, well, I'm sorry you disagree with the FBI, and believe that it left stones un-turned despite losing many agents. Ask any anti-federal government activist, and they will compare the FBI to the SS...
Lastly, as Muslims seem determined to undergo their own Wars of Religion, non-Muslims have a right to not be involved, and Americans have a right to decide not to import those conflicts.
Azor..how many US armed white nationalists and or white supremacist militias are there in the US VS say how many US armed jihadist groups?
How many US based white nationalist and or white supremacist social media sites and blogsites are there currently VS US jihadists on the social media side?
How many armed confrontations in recent years in the West of the US were driven by armed white men against the Federal Government?
And yet the current WH claims jihadists are the true danger?
What about the anti Islam comments and writings by say Bannon...Miller..Flynn..and Gorka....which border on white nationalism and or white supremacy....?
BTW the European Wars of Religion were finally settled when both sides were basically exhausted and there were no living humans and or farm animals in large areas of Germany....
AND that took how many years?
Actually what is interesting is that one believes in the Second Coming...that would mean the destruction of Israel....
BTW...the bombing at Oklahoma City has never truly been explained by the FBI....anyone with IED experience from say Iraq knows what it takes to mix by hand a 4000lb fertilizer and diesel fuel IED....and two men are not enough....also a white man carried out bombing....rumored ties to a number of armed white militias were never really explained as no one seemed to care...
TO OUTLAW 09: CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE
Outlaw 09: “…I would bluntly argue that white supremacy or better worded white nationalism has not disappeared at all…in fact both terms mean exactly the same thing...”
You and your ellipsis! It drives me up the wall when it’s not three periods.
White Supremacy and White Nationalism are related and membership is highly correlated, but they are not “exactly the same”, as White Nationalists include egalitarian separatists who desire a separate but equal society segregated on the basis of race. Conversely, Black Nationalism includes supremacist separatists as well as supremacist integrationists, the latter of which desiring an integrated society in which blacks receive special privileges on the basis of their race such as reparations, autonomy, etc.
Outlaw 09: “…what the MB...AQ and IS are pushing is in fact a version of Muslim nationalism nothing more nothing less...”
Yes, I agree. However, Muslims were unified in a single unitary state from the 7th to 10th Centuries. Despite competition and fragmentation from the 10th Century on, the Ottoman Empire nevertheless was considered the successor to the early Caliphates, and therefore Muslims could look to a supra-national Muslim state until the early 20th Century.
Outlaw 09: “IMHO though what we are seeing with AQ...IS..Hezbollah...Iraqi Shia militia and say the IRGC is a form of true Islamic fascism...but that is another discussion...”
Yet what of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Admittedly, continuing with the reference to Fascism, Saudi Arabia is more analogous to Portugal or Spain, than it is to say Germany or Italy.
If there was a Muslim supremacist coup d’état in Islamabad, our troubles in North Korea and Iran would seem very minor indeed.
Outlaw 09: “When we talk about AQ and moreover IS we need to use the term "Takfirists" why because only a Muslim can in fact kill another Muslim over an "interpretation of the Koran"...and that Muslim can only be a Takfirist...”
I completely agree with you on this point, and I have argued with others that Wahhabism is very different from the type of Takfiri Salafism espoused by Qutb and others, given that no Daesh, Al Qaeda or Al Shabaab leaders want to accept higher authority in secular or religious matters, other than their own interpretation of Islam.
Outlaw 09: “...there have been far more Muslims killed by these groups…”
There is nothing surprising here. The conflicts in Ireland in the 20th Century were overwhelmingly Irishmen killing other Irishmen, with Britons comprising less than 10% of the total dead. Stalin spent far more time and energy killing and enslaving his own citizens suspected of less-than-total loyalty, than he did killing and enslaving the Fascists and Western democracies which were supposedly the Soviet Union’s sworn enemies. Hitler, despite his racial policies, spent the war killing tens of millions that were far closer culturally and genetically to the German people, than his allies or clients in France, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Spain and Japan. The Thirty Years War’s Battle of Luetzen supposedly involved a Catholic Austrian-led army facing off against a Protestant Swedish-led army; in reality, even the two ethnically-Swedish units by now comprised Germans. Luther himself declared that it was preferable for a person to be killed at the hands of a Muslim than it was for them to follow Catholicism.
Outlaw 09: “So in some aspects using the term "un-Islamic" simply means that the jihad that they are on is being taken out of context in the Koran and corrupted to fit their version of Islam...”
I can think of a variety of Christian practices and doctrines that are arguably “taken of context” from the Bible and “corrupted to fit” various sects and churches’ versions of Christianity. The divide between the Greek and Catholic Churches has lasted over one millennium and other Christian sectarian divides have lasted several centuries (Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant and intra-Protestant). So what is Christian and what is “un-Christian” in this context?
Outlaw 09: “Really read some of the academic works on the life of Mohammed and you will actually see that his view of Islam is not exactly what is being pushed today...in both the global Sunni and Shia community...and this is due to the various "Islamic centers of learning for both sects" having their influence and sway over their interpretation of Islam...Mohammed...the Sunnahs...and the Koran...and it goes back 1500 years to the killing of what Shia claim was the rightful ruler that should have be chosen after Mohammed died...Hussain.”
Again, to refer back to Europe’s Wars of Religion, peace was not achieved by appeal to Scripture or the decisions of ecumenical councils. Were all the pale blonds with colored eyes in Norway, Denmark, Poland, Belarus and Russia able to deter Hitler’s genocide by appealing to National Socialist racial theories? Were the victims of Stalin’s NKVD and KGB able to save their lives by demonstrating adherence to Marxist-Leninist theory? Unfortunately, that’s not how it works.
Outlaw 09: “Part of the problem lies within Islam itself and the way it is structured...any Mullah and or Imam can interpret for his "community" at will what he thinks Mohammed said and or did...then take in the Sunnahs and Koran....and presto we have a new "local interpretation...”
Nearly all ideologies lend themselves to convenient and local interpretations. The more salient problem with Islam is notions of Tawhid and that the Quran is directly from God rather than a human translation, work against diverse interpretations.
Outlaw 09: “This is exactly what AQ and IS have in fact done...so in some sense McMaster is correct when he uses the term un-Islamic...”
Firstly, McMaster is not a theologian whereby he can make a determination that one interpretation of Islam is correct and another isn’t.
Secondly, our objectives should be to quell the political violence associated with Islam, whether or not Islam permits or encourages such violence.
Outlaw 09: “…white nationalism is white nationalism a totally different beast...”
Where there are whites, there is White Nationalism and White Supremacism. The question is: is it a significant problem on a relative or per capita basis? In the United States, on both a relative and absolute basis, Muslim supremacist terrorism is a significant problem, whereas White Supremacist terrorism is about as minimized as it can be and is not a significant problem.
Outlaw 09: “…Islam accepts fully Judaism as it does Christianity as being "people of the book"...and surprise surprise it virtually accepts all the prophets of those two religions and hold Abraham and the Virgin Mary in high esteem...”
And Christianity accepts Judaism. Arguably, Islam is a form of Judaism adapted for the Arab tribes and Mohammed’s preferences.
Yet how is this helpful? Did the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and Anabaptist Christians primarily fight those whose beliefs differed the most from their own or those whose beliefs were most similar? Was Hitler’s genocidal wars directed at people furthest or closest to his conception of the “Master Race”? Did Stalin spend more time killing the foreigners seeking to bring down the Soviet Union or citizens suspected of being influenced by foreigners?
Interesting angle from @adegrandpre on McMaster's decision to wear a uniform as NSA.
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/hr-mcmaster-donald-trump-national…
No biggie, he's just a major national security player in the White House helping to craft policies that literally affect billions of people AND he supposedly holds a Ph.D.....and be this great irregular warfare strategist and thinker.....
On NPR this morning, Sebastian Gorka says Egypt is the most populous Muslim country.
Nope.
That would be Indonesia.
Most populous Arab country. Yes, there is a difference.
There are also more Muslims (Sunni and Shia) in India than Egypt.
AND NOTICE this comment from a highly educated so called Islamic specialist......
Seb Gorka on NPR just now, won’t say the White House believes Islam is a religion. “We won’t get into theological debates.”
THERE are about 1.9B people on each side of this debate....SOMEHOW Gorka missed his religious training in Hungary when he was a member of the Ultra Right Party.....
Islam is recognized as one of the THREE GREAT religions and it even states they share that role with the other "peoples of the book"....and it fully recognizes Abraham and the Virgin Mary who it highly honors...
New NatSec Advisor McMaster lobbied against Trump including phrase "radical Islamic terrorism", POTUS overruled - CNN
And there it is: "radical Islamic terrorism" makes it in, over the objection of his new NatSec Advisor McMaster
So now we fully understand what limitations McMaster's is now working under...
Michael Flynn Jr
@mflynnJR
I seem to recall an individual who wrote the book on Radical Islamic Terrorism. What's new NatSec's stance again? #JointAddress
Michael Flynn Jr
@mflynnJR
Hmm...I wonder who just wrote the book on "How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies" ??
SO just long does McMaster hold out against Gorka...Miller...Trump and Bannon????
REMEMBER Flynn's own son got bounced out of the Trump transition team for tweeting anti-Semitic and white nationalists retweets....
THEN denying he had done it after attempting to cover his tracks by deleting them.....put archived is archived...these days....
RC: “In the main we have a support role and 99% of the fighting, dying and bleeding is being done by our Muslim allies…So what we have in Iraq and AF is 10,000 Muslim men dying each year for the interests of their own country as well as the interests of the US.”
Yet this situation is not uncommon. Local friendlies did the bulk of the fighting and dying in Korea and Vietnam, in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq (2001 to present). Despite the Afghans’ lack of enthusiasm for the PDPA, its forces nevertheless suffered heavier losses than the Soviets from 1979-1989. As for the British, they relied upon local auxiliaries to enforce their rule regardless of whether those locals saw themselves as British or not. ;)
As for Iraq, after upsetting the ethnic and sectarian apple cart in 2003, we have tried various approaches to corral the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis into a stable and peaceful society so that we can go home. Shia domination in 2011 led to the rise of Daesh and to increasing de facto independence for the Kurds, and in 2017 we are hoping that we can use a Shia army to defeat a Sunni army without oppressing Sunni civilians and resetting the cycle.
In Afghanistan, we are relying upon an army and police force dominated by Tajiks and Hazaras to quell Pashtun militancy.
RC: “In both Afghanistan and Iraq the troops we are embedded with do not consider their opponents to be motivated by Islam.”
I don’t disagree. I believe that the problems in Afghanistan are mainly ethnic in nature. There is a nation of some 40 million Pashtun straddling the Durand Line whose independence would mean the breakup of Pakistan. Ul-Haq successfully kept Pashtun cohesiveness to the tribal level and then offered Salafism as an alternative unifying force to ethnic nationalism.
The Shias and Kurds of Iraq were oppressed for many decades by the Sunnis. In all probability the common experience and background of being oppressed was more of a unifying and motivating force than piety or the differences between Shia and Sunni, or between Kurdish and Arabic.
RC: “But it doesn’t matter what I or any other foreigners believe – it is not about us – it’s about the folks who live there. If they believe they are fighting the good fight as Muslim’s and the enemy are just plain criminals and/or terrorists what benefit does our national interest enjoy if we disagree with this sentiment.”
I completely agree, which is why I don’t appreciate foreigners such as Bush, Obama and McMaster explaining what is “un-Islamic”.
RC: “Make no mistake, to suggest to our allies that Daesh or the Taliban are motivated by some extreme interpretation of Islam is probably the most profound insult you could level at a Iraqi or Afghan trooper.”
Yet these groups claim not only to be Muslim, but to be the purest of Muslims. Your point almost sounds as though one can’t accuse someone else of ultra-nationalism or Fascism because it might offend proper nationalists.
As for religion itself, there is theory and practice, and there is the ideal and the actual. Islam has been adapted to and blended with local cultures to the degree that it is difficult to tease out what is Muslim and what is Arab or what is Muslim and what is Pashtun.
Motivations are complex, and I would posit that both Daesh and the Taliban include the blindest of the fanatics and the sleaziest of the opportunists.
Yet in the West, political violence is coming from the Muslim community, as data in the United States and Europe indicates. It is one thing to help Muslims and Muslim allies fight jihadis overseas; it is quite another to import that struggle here.
RC: “Essentially the point I believe McMaster was trying to convey was if you attempt to discern the prime drivers thru a religious lens you will alienate our allies. IMHO the enemy marches to a drum far removed from the heavenly inspiration that you suggest and as such if you attempt to target him thru such a myopic he will ghost straight past you.”
I am not suggesting that we reverse McMaster’s statement to say that terrorism is Islamic. However, we can on the one hand help our Muslim allies fight supremacist insurgencies and terrorism, and on the other, prevent Muslim sectarian violence from becoming more salient in the West.
RC: “Just a travel tip. If you are ever in Ulster in a loyalist pub and you want to leave with your front teeth intact, I wouldn’t let on you don’t consider Ulstermen to be Britons.”
I’ll bear that in mind.
Azor wrote:
‘By the way, what "political ends that benefit our national interest" will be achieved by calling jihadi terrorism "un-Islamic"?’
It depends on what you believe McMaster is attempting to achieve in the Muslim countries where we have military personnel engaged in countering wide-spread communal violence. I presume you agree as the NSA to the POTUS, he is attempting boost the interests of the US and her allies.
In Iraq and Afghanistan most of the heavy lifting is being carried out by native troops. The vast majority consider themselves to be Muslim. In the main we have a support role and 99% of the fighting, dying and bleeding is being done by our Muslim allies. Currently the death toll among their ranks is approx. 5000 KIA a year in both Iraq and AF and times two WIA.
I assume you agree we are not involved in Iraq, Af and 150 other countries out of the milk of human kindness. We are there to further our own interests first and foremost. So what we have in Iraq and AF is 10,000 Muslim men dying each year for the interests of their own country as well as the interests of the US.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq the troops we are embedded with do not consider their opponents to be motivated by Islam. I happen to agree with that and I suspect Gen McMaster has a similar opinion. I respect we all have different experiences that have shaped our understanding of what is driving the political violence. I have no doubt my own and Gen McMaster’s experiences are somewhat narrower than your own, hence the chasm between your understanding of the motivational mindset of the enemy and my own and a considerable number of others I have known over the years.
Fair enough. Not the first time I got it completely wrong and I’m certain it won’t be the last.
But it doesn’t matter what I or any other foreigners believe – it is not about us – it’s about the folks who live there. If they believe they are fighting the good fight as Muslim’s and the enemy are just plain criminals and/or terrorists what benefit does our national interest enjoy if we disagree with this sentiment.
Make no mistake, to suggest to our allies that Daesh or the Taliban are motivated by some extreme interpretation of Islam is probably the most profound insult you could level at a Iraqi or Afghan trooper.
So what?
I’m guessing we can agree on the importance of understanding what drives the individuals opposing us.
The best advice I ever received regards how best to get inside the mind of belligerents is to leave religion to one side and frame the motivational mindset of the combatants as essentially farm-laborers eking a living with guns, hillbilly explosives, clapped out pickups and cell-phones instead of hoes, pitchforks, plowshares etc.
In my experience unless our enemies were paid they would not fight, dig holes, drive pickups etc. If wages and chow were not forthcoming they would abandon the mission, mount up and head to the nearest town and sell their guns and ammo, shake-down travelers in a road-block, ride shotgun for some heroin smuggler etc. or go home and sulk.
Needless to say someone walking/driving up to you and detonating themselves falls somewhat outside a ‘Little House on the Prairie’ template. However in my experience these extreme acts are a consequence of many of the suicidal perpetrators having severe mental health issues – especially so the foreign fighters
I happened upon a training camp for suiciders wherein a dozen different nationalities were encamped (including Americans). The trainees were basically recruited in their homelands sleeping on the streets; their mental health problems the arbitrator of societal dysfunction. The more severely retarded (chronic autism, Down Syndrome etc) tended to be of native stock, essentially sold by their parents in order to save multiple siblings, grandparents whatever from abject poverty.
Essentially the point I believe McMaster was trying to convey was if you attempt to discern the prime drivers thru a religious lens you will alienate our allies. IMHO the enemy marches to a drum far removed from the heavenly inspiration that you suggest and as such if you attempt to target him thru such a myopic he will ghost straight past you.
Azor wrote:
“The conflicts in Ireland in the 20th Century were overwhelmingly Irishmen killing other Irishmen, with Britons comprising less than 10% of the total dead”
Just a travel tip. If you are ever in Ulster in a loyalist pub and you want to leave with your front teeth intact, I wouldn’t let on you don’t consider Ulstermen to be Britons.
RC
Yet perception is reality, and Salafism is gaining ground within Sunni Islam, whether or not its adherents can read and comprehend the Quran or not.
You may as well criticize the Chinese Communist Party for being "un-Communist" or the UDA, UDF and PIRA for being "un-Christian".
When I use the term "Muslim Supremacist", I am referring to a person who identifies as a Muslim, and who regards their Islamic beliefs and practices as superior to all others.
The issue is not Islam's spirituality, but Islam's temporal organization and practices. I think that any attempt to explain Muslim supremacist terrorism by linking it to the Quran or Hadiths is silly, but I also think the same of any attempt to call the terrorism "un-Islamic".
By the way, what "political ends that benefit our national interest" will be achieved by calling jihadi terrorism "un-Islamic"?
'Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster told members of the National Security Council that the use of the term "radical Islamic terrorism" was counterproductive because the actions of terrorists are "un-Islamic," according to the New York Times newspaper.'
As far as I'm concerned this is the first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment we need to accept if we hope to achieve the political Ends that benefit our national interest.
Having interrogated dozens of so-called 'jihadis' and observed thousands in their unguarded moments over many years, I can count on one hand the number of 'jihadis' who's claim to be motivated by a genuine understanding of Koranic doctrine to be genuine.
The difficulty of reading Classic Arabic means that hundreds of millions of Muslims cannot even provide a literal translation of the 5 daily prayers they utter every day of their lives. The spiritual nuances contained in a book two inches thick uttered in poetic koine by the Archangel Gabriel 1500 years ago are a formidable intellectual challenge to the most studious of Arabic scholars. Within the 'jihadi'rank and file who can't even write their own name in their native language....?
This un-Islamic ignorance is overwhelmingly obvious when you are face to face with the average 'jihadi' at the sharp end. IMHO anyone who claims the nature of the task we are currently undertaking is grounded in a spiritual interpretation of Islam needs a new line of work. I hear Moscow is hiring.
I imagine McMaster considers the cognitive lens that fixates on a Islamic strategic menace beholds the same promise the Domino Theory heralded 60 years ago.
RC
Bill C......McMaster has lost his battle...question is now just how long will he remain NSA after this.....
HR McMaster tried but failed to strike “radical Islamic terrorism” from tonight’s speech, sources say.
THIS means that Miller and Bannon together with Breitbart.com and Infowars have far more input than does McMaster.....
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/mcmaster-trump-terrorism-speech-2…
President Donald Trump’s new national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, advised him in a closed-door meeting last week to stop using a phrase that was a frequent refrain during the campaign: “radical Islamic terrorism.”
But the phrase will be in the president’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, according to a senior White House aide—even though McMaster reviewed drafts and his staff pressed the president's chief speechwriter and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, not to use it.
What the president decides to say in his address will be an early indication of McMaster's clout within the administration. McMaster, a career officer, was brought in after the ouster of Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn, an early and loyal Trump supporter who said violence was a feature of Islam.
With less than two weeks on the job, McMaster is still in the process of asserting himself in a West Wing, where the circle of aides who can influence the president nonetheless remains small.
In his first remarks to the National Security Council last week, McMaster told his new staff he considered the term “radical Islamic terrorism” unhelpful, according to a second White House aide. “Even a small change like referring to ‘radical Islamist terrorism’ would be an improvement, in his view,” said this aide.
“Islamist” typically describes fundamentalist supporters of Islam-based government and society, rather than implicitly encompassing all Muslims.
The president's political advisers fear any sudden change in his rhetoric could open him to charges that he's abandoning his promise to speak plainly and openly to the American people. Both sides say a gradual shift in the president's rhetoric over time is possible.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis were also asked for their input on the portions of the speech relating to foreign policy, according to a White House aide.
In recent years the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” become a rallying cry for conservatives who believe Islam is inherently at odds with Western liberal values. President Barack Obama, following the example of President George W. Bush before him, pointedly avoided saying it—citing expert opinion that the wording risks alienating moderate Muslims who hear it as an indictment of their religion.
Obama preferred the phrase “violent extremism,” which makes no reference to any specific religion.
McMaster expressed "great disdain" for that approach, according to a senior National Security Council official. “He understands that pretending that it's not something within Islam that's causing this—you can't pretend that, but you can enlist the people within Islam who agree with you,” said the official.
Fighting in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, McMaster pioneered a counterinsurgency strategy that required him and his troops to live amongst Iraqis, gaining their trust and cooperation. “There’s no question that H.R. was very successful as a counterinsurgent in Tal Afar in 2005 and 2006,” said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Invisible Armies, a history of guerilla warfare. “Unlike Steve Bannon, H.R. has actually fought insurgents and knows what it takes to fight and prevail. You have to actually work with Muslims and get them to trust you and fight alongside you.”
“We could stay in our F.O.B. [Forward Operating Base] and eat mini pizzas and ice cream and redeploy in a year, but that won’t win the war,” McMaster told the Washington Post at the time.
As the war on terror shifted under Obama, his opponents latched onto his refusal to say “radical Islamic terrorism” as evidence that he failed to understand the nature of the terrorist threat and how best to combat it—and in some cases used Obama’s resistance to the phrase to falsely suggest the president was himself Muslim.
Trump made the phrase a core theme of his campaign, culminating in an August 15 speech in Youngstown, Ohio, entitled “Understanding the Threat: Radical Islam and the Age of Terror.”
“Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead this country,” Trump said. “Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our president.”
The speech made five references to “Radical Islamic Terrorism”—capitalized in the original text—and seven more to “Radical Islam.”
Sebastian Gorka, a White House advisor with a background in counter-terrorism, told a crowd at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference that the president's remarks in Youngstown were key to understanding his foreign policy.
Trump also used the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" in his January inaugural address. “We will ... unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth,” he said.
Gorka assured National Public Radio earlier this month that Trump was ushering in a new era in which – free from the political correctness that the president believes shackled the previous administration – the U.S. would identify its enemies forthrightly.
“What is the phrase [Trump] uses again and again and again? It's not Islam. It's not a discussion about Islam as a religion or not a religion. It's about radical Islamic terrorism,” Gorka said. “We are prepared to be honest about the threat. We're not going to white it out, delete it as the Obama administration did.”
McMaster’s appointment as national security adviser and reports that he endorses the past rhetoric of Obama and Bush has already alarmed members of the self-proclaimed “counter-jihad” community, which views Islam as an inherently violent religion.
Uttering the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” is “central to the promises [Trump] made to the American people,” said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, who backs hardline policies against Islamist influence at home and abroad.
Gaffney said he's skeptical of reports that McMaster has declared his opposition to using the phrase.
“It just seems kind of incredible that a guy would come into this job knowing the importance that the president has assigned to this, and start out his tenure by fundamentally departing from that direction,” Gaffney said. If true, he added, “I think this would be getting off to a very bad footing.”
The two Alternative Test Cases that I have offered below (Jewish Zealots versus the Pagan Romans; the Islamists versus the secular Soviets/communists); these appear to fit well with our actual, present-day case -- of the secular U.S./the West versus the Islamists (et al.) today -- this, given that ALL these such cases appear to involve:
a. Great foreign powers,
b. Bent on gaining greater power, influence and control throughout the world and
c. Attempting to do this by:
1. Transforming the "outlying" states and societies of the world more along the great foreign power's own, unusual and unique -- and thus often alien and profane -- political, economic, social and value lines. And by these great foreign powers attempting to:
2. Incorporate such "outlying" states and societies more into their (the foreign great power's) "sphere" of power, influence and control.
Thus shall we agree that, in all such instances noted above (the Jewish Zealots v. Pagan Romans case, the Islamists v. the secular Soviets/communists case and, indeed, the Islamists v. the secular U.S./the West case of today as well);
That in all these such instances, what is "corrupting" to the religion of the natives (and, by logical extension, to their "religious-based" political, economic, social and values ideas, institutions and norms as well?); this, quite obviously, is:
a. Not "terrorism" (undertaken by the natives in the defense of their -- religious-oriented -- way of life, way of governance and values, attitudes and beliefs?). But, indeed,
b. The "transformation and assimilation" efforts of the intervening/invading/occupying foreign great powers?
Thus, to suggest -- in direct contradiction to the suggestions made by McMaster above -- that in ALL the instances we have been discussing here (Jewish Zealots v. the Pagan Romans, the Islamists v. the secular Soviets/communist and the Islamists v. the secular U.S./the West); that in all these such cases:
a. "Terrorism" does not "corrupt" Islam" -- nor does it "corrupt" a specific religion or "religion" generally? Likewise, in all such instances noted above:
b. "Terrorism" is not "un-Islamic" -- nor is it "un-religious" re: any specific religion or re: "religion" generally.
In stark contrast, what would appear to actually be "corrupting" of Islam (and of any threatened religion generally) -- and indeed what would appear to actually be "un-Islamic" (and "un-religious" re: any threatened religion generally) -- this would seem to be, quite obviously:
a. The efforts by foreign intervening/invading/occupying great powers; this, to:
b. "Transform and assimilate" (more along foreign great power's own alien and profane political, economic, social and/or value lines) the outlying states, societies and civilizations of the world?
(Even the recent election of President Trump here at home to be understood somewhat along these lines; wherein, [a] a revolt by certain elements of our population; this is brought on by [b] the perceived threats to same posed by "foreign" individuals, "foreign" ideas and norms, and what appears to be a "foreign" [in our case "internationalist?"] agenda?)
Azor...I would bluntly argue that white supremacy or better worded white nationalism has not disappeared at all ..in fact both terms mean exactly the same thing.....
In some aspects what the MB...AQ and IS are pushing is in fact a version of Muslim nationalism nothing more nothing less...just worded a tad differently as they are speaking to other Muslims...not non believers like you and me....
What we a really seeing in the US...Europe and other areas is the raise of populism with a nationalist tinge....
Now if one reads the following article...one could in fact apply it to "radical Islam" that Trump...Bannon and company like bashing so much.....
In many aspects what AQ and IS...and YES even Hezbollah are pushing is in fact is a form of 'Islamic populism"...AND not much different from Trump's own version...
IMHO though what we are seeing with AQ...IS..Hezbollah...Iraqi Shia militia and say the IRGC is a form of true Islamic fascism......but that is another discussion....VS say "populism" per se....
Long read but actually very telling ......
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/what-is-populi...
What Is a Populist?
And is Donald Trump one?
Uri Friedman
| 12:20 PM ET
Why does Donald Trump exaggerate the size of his inauguration crowd, brag about his election win in conversations with world leaders, and claim without evidence that voter fraud may have cost him the popular vote? Why does he dismiss protesters who oppose him as “paid professionals” and polls that reflect poorly on him as “fake news”? Why does he call much of the media the “enemy of the people”?
There are explanations for these things that focus on the individual, characterizing Trump as a self-centered reality-TV star obsessed with approval and allergic to criticism.
But there is also an ideological explanation, and it involves a concept that gets mentioned a lot these days without much context or elaboration: populism.
What is a populist?
No definition of populism will fully describe all populists. That’s because populism is a “thin ideology” in that it “only speaks to a very small part of a political agenda,” according to Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia and the co-author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction. An ideology like fascism involves a holistic view of how politics, the economy, and society as a whole should be ordered. Populism doesn’t; it calls for kicking out the political establishment, but it doesn’t specify what should replace it. So it’s usually paired with “thicker” left- or right-wing ideologies like socialism or nationalism.
Populists are dividers, not uniters, Mudde told me. They split society into “two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other,” and say they’re guided by the “will of the people.” The United States is what political scientists call a “liberal democracy,” a system “based on pluralism—on the idea that you have different groups with different interests and values, which are all legitimate,” Mudde explained. Populists, in contrast, are not pluralist. They consider just one group—whatever they mean by “the people”—legitimate.
This conception of legitimacy stems from the fact that populists view their mission as “essentially moral,” Mudde noted. The “distinction between the elite and the people is not based on how much money you have or even what kind of position you have. It’s based on your values.”
Given their moral framing, populists conclude that they alone represent “the people.” They may not win 100 percent of the vote, but they lay claim to 100 percent of the support of good, hardworking folks who have been exploited by the establishment. They don’t assert that the neglected people who back them should be kept in mind by political leaders just like all other citizens; they claim that these neglected people are the only people that matter.
“[P]opulists only lose if ‘the silent majority’—shorthand for ‘the real people’—has not had a chance to speak, or worse, has been prevented from expressing itself,” explains Jan-Werner Müller, a professor at Princeton University and the author of What Is Populism? “Hence the frequent invocation of conspiracy theories by populists: something going on behind the scenes has to account for the fact that corrupt elites are still keeping the people down. … [I]f the people’s politician doesn’t win, there must be something wrong with the system.”
Advertisement
One might expect this argument to fail once populists enter government and become the establishment. But no: Populists—ranging from the revolutionary socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to the religious conservative Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey—have managed to portray themselves as victims even at the height of their power, blaming their shortcomings on sabotage by shadowy domestic or foreign elites.
The notion of one virtuous people and one vile elite is a fiction, even if it does reflect real divisions and power dynamics in a given society. “There is no single political will, let alone a single political opinion, in a modern, complex, pluralist—in short, enormously messy—democracy,” writes Müller. It’s not that populists have some special mind meld with the masses. Rather, “[p]opulists put words into the mouth of what is after all their own creation.” As an example, Müller cites Nigel Farage, the former leader of the populist U.K. Independence Party, who called Britain’s vote to leave the European Union a “victory for real people,” as if the 48 percent of British people who voted to remain in the EU were “somehow less than real—or, rather, questioning their status as members of the political community.”
Populists “tend to define the people as those that are with them,” Mudde said. The mark of a populist isn’t which specific groups of people he or she includes in “the people” or “the establishment.” It’s the fact that he or she is separating the world into those warring camps in the first place.
Continued.......
BLUF...really look at a lot of the AQ/IS/Hezbollah/IRGC propaganda and political statements....you will notice just how they fit this article as nicely...but when we watch IS structure itself in Iraq and Syria then one could say they edged very close to fascism....once they took control....
THAT is the fear I see with Trump...Bannon and company...populism is used to gain power...then the not so subtle shift to fascism is rather easy....
Actually have to agree with TC on this...when talking to actual "conservative sects of Islam" there is a great distinction between them....
When we talk about AQ and moreover IS we need to use the term "Takfirists" why because only a Muslim can in fact kill another Muslim over an "interpretation of the Koran"....and that Muslim can only be a Takfirist....
If we closely look at the sheer numbers killed by AQ.....then in Iraq with first QJBR then AQI and then IS....followed by the Syrian IS offshoots...there have been far more Muslims killed by these groups than say Trump wants to admit...were killed in any attacks on the US including 9/11.....9/11 was what roughly 3K....currently how many Sunni's and or Shia have been killed by both Sunni and Shia Takfirists or in sectarian violence which is over both of their interpretations of Islam???.
Now begins the interesting point Salafists on the over hand tended in Iraq to only kill Shia and or members of AQI as AQI had declared war on them as well as AQI attempted to control all of the Iraqi Sunni insurgency by 2005/2006...we see the same exact moves being made today in Syria via IS...then Nusra/JFS and now JaA....and the reaction of the Syrians in joining HTS...to counter those moves.
So in some aspects using the term "unIslamic" simply means that the jihad that they are on is being taken out of context in the Koran and corrupted to fit their version of Islam...
Really read some of the academic works on the life of Mohammed and you will actually see that his view of Islam is not exactly what is being pushed today....in both the global Sunni and Shia community....and this is due to the various "Islamic centers of learning for both sects" having their influence and sway over their interpretation of Islam...Mohammed......the Sunnahs...and the Koran.......and it goes back 1500 years to the killing of what Shia claim was the rightful ruler that should have be chosen after Mohammed died...Hussain.
Part of the problem lies within Islam itself and the way it is structured...any Mullah and or Imam can interpret for his "community" at will what he thinks Mohammed said and or did ...then take in the Sunnahs and Koran....and presto we have a new "local interpretation....
This is exactly what AQ and IS have in fact done....so in some sense McMaster is correct when he uses the term "unIslamic".....
BUT white nationalism is white nationalism a totally different beast....
AND it is tied to being bluntly put..."white"....
It is racist and it is anti-Semitic....THE interesting thing is that Islam accepts fully Judaism as it does Christianity as being "people of the book"....and surprise surprise it virtually accepts all the prophets of those two religions and hold Abraham and the Virgin Mary in high esteem....
NOW ask any American "do you in fact fully understand that Islam accepts the two other main religions and accepts Abraham and the Virgin Mary"...it just does not accept Jesus as their religous leader....BUT they do accept YES even Jesus the Son of God....
NOW just how strange is that?
Gen. McMaster isn't an expert in Islam. His areas of expertise are military science and American history.
He is in no position to determine what is "Islamic" and what is "un-Islamic". Some Muslim clerics have argued that Muslim supremacist terrorism is "un-Islamic", while others have argued that peaceful Muslim co-existence with non-Muslims is "un-Islamic".
The AfD is not a white supremacist party and Steve Bannon is not a white supremacist. Moreover, both Germany and the United States have a Basic Law and Constitution, respectively, as well as judiciaries, preventing them from becoming white supremacist states in the manner of Rhodesia or South Africa.
But you keep tilting at windmills...
Having heard McMaster speak on the subject, I would say he is an expert on Islam as it applies to terrorism. However, that is not why I write. You claim White Supremecy'slast state sponsor vanished in 1994, I would argue that state sponsored White Supremacist views arevery much alive today in places like Germany in the APD and America in Steve Bannon.
Gen. McMaster is not in a position to determine whether or not the activities of Daesh, Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al, are Islamic or not. He is neither a Muslim nor an expert on Islam. Moreover, our concerns are with the specific practices and practitioners of Islam rather than Islamic theology itself.
White supremacism is not representative of the beliefs or actions of white people, and yet that does not render it "un-white" supremacism.
I would say that what is referred to as "radical Islam" should instead be referred to as "Muslim supremacism". My reasoning is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aside, these terrorists are not fighting for equality in the way that drove ETA or the IRA, but for supremacy.
Whereas white supremacy's last state sponsor vanished in 1994, Muslim supremacism enjoys the sponsorship of a variety of states, as well as the support of mainstream Muslim organizations that while not supremacist themselves necessarily, provide fertile soil for supremacism to take root (e.g Muslim Brotherhood).
Gen. McMaster would note that during World War II, the Western Allies conducted a total war against Germany and Japan, and offered to cease "strategic bombing" if the German and Japanese people overthrew their leaders. For those states and non-state actors that are facilitating Muslim supremacism, there should be punitive actions taken so long as they are accomplices.
Hello Bill C.!
I thought I would reply to your comment...
Personally, I consider religion to be a category of ideology, as an individual’s spiritual beliefs are different from the hierarchy, doctrine and secular or temporal interests and functions of organized groups of individuals with shared spiritual beliefs. Anecdotally, most storm or shock troops who threw themselves across machine guns or charged through minefields because of the infallibility of the Fuehrer or the Party, are no less committed to something greater than themselves than the Christians who peaceably accepted martyrdom or the Salafist suicide bombers who tugged on the cord.
With that being said, I would also say that there is no universal agreed upon definition of terrorism. Terrorism is a form of warfare that combines unconventional and total warfare. Rather than the Jewish-Roman Wars or the Soviet-Afghan War, a better example may be the British campaign against Germany in German-occupied Europe until D-Day, which arguably constituted terrorism against German soldiers, civilians, allies and auxiliaries. Even friendly civilians suffered, either due to air raids or due to German reprisals after successful British SOF operations. Churchill fought dirty, and his strategic genius could be contained by neither the laws or war nor tactical considerations.
All ideologies address violence and are open to interpretation, with some lending themselves to violence on those ideologies’ behalf and others explicitly demanding non-violence. Unfortunately, Islam lends itself to political violence based upon the Quran, Hadiths and jurisprudence. If Christianity, which espouses peace and forgiveness - and which spawned all manner of pacifists and conscientious objectors that confounded military recruiters - can be contorted by Christian “warriors”, there is no hope for a peaceful Islam to be found in the Quran or Hadiths.
Another consideration is the “higher object” of the political violence of a particular ideology. In the case of National Socialism, the end state was a German Empire extending from Central Europe to the Urals, in which tens of millions of undesirables had been killed off and tens of millions were enslaved. Slaves aside, the “higher object” was supremacist separatism, with the separation being an issue of a bullet rather than a border. In the case of Catholic Republicanism in Northern Ireland, the end state began as equality for Catholics, intensified into Catholic dominion over the island, and was resolved at equality or egalitarian integration. Did the Afghans and Jews want to reign over the Soviets and Romans, respectively, or were they largely egalitarian separatists?
There is a strong case to be made that the Palestinians want egalitarian integration or separatism with the Israelis. However, outside of Palestine there is a strong Salafist sentiment that desires dominion over the non-Muslim world and to convert it: supremacist integration.
Taking my cues here from the first and second paragraphs of our article above, and speaking now in more general terms:
Are terrorist acts -- undertaken in the name and/or service of one's religion -- are these such terrorist acts "corrupting" to said religion? Likewise,
Are terrorist acts -- undertaken in the name and/or service of one's religion -- are these such terrorist acts, in fact, "un-religious."
Alternative Test Case No. One: The Jewish Zealots versus the Pagan Romans:
"Zealot: A member of a Jewish sect noted for its uncompromising opposition to pagan Rome and the polytheism it professed. The Zealots were an aggressive political party whose concern for the national and religious life of the Jewish people led them to despise even Jews who sought peace and conciliation with the Roman authorities. A census of Galilee ordered by Rome in AD 6 spurred the Zealots to rally the populace to noncompliance on the grounds that agreement was an implicit acknowledgment by Jews of the right of pagans to rule their nation. Extremists among the Zealots turned to terrorism and assassination and became known as Sicarii (Greek sikarioi, “dagger men”). They frequented public places with hidden daggers to strike down persons friendly to Rome. In the first revolt against Rome (ad 66–70) the Zealots played a leading role, and at Masada in 73 they committed suicide rather than surrender the fortress, but they were still a force to be reckoned with in the first part of the following century. A few scholars see a possible relationship between the Zealots and the Jewish religious community mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zealot
Alternative Test Case No. Two: The Islamists -- in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- versus the secular Soviets/the communists:
"The overt attack on Afghan social values was presented, by the resistance forces, as an attack on Islamic values. This was also seen as an attack on the honor of women. The initiatives introduced by PDPA -- to impose literacy on women and girls -- inevitably raised questions as to the potential role of women outside the the home. This provoked defensive actions from men, concerned with protecting the honor of women with their families, and to also ensure that traditional roles of women within the domestic sphere continued to be performed. It also generated fears that the important roles of women, as the primary vehicles for passing traditional and Islamic values from one generation to another, would be undermined if they were exposed to external and, particularly, non-Islamic values. This enabled the exiled radical Islamic parties to claim leadership of the resistance and to also declare a jihad."
https://books.google.com/books?id=YeYBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=The+…
Bottom Line Questions -- Based on the Above:
Were the terrorist actions, undertaken by the Jewish Zealots vis-a-vis the Roman Pagans in Alternative Test Case No. One -- and/or by the Islamists vis-a-vis the Soviets/the communists in Alternative Test Case No. Two -- were either of these such terrorist actions:
a. "Corrupting" to their respective religions? Likewise were they, respectively,
b. "Un-Jewish" or "un-Islamic?"
"Terrorists," in both alternative cases noted above, thus to be seen more as religious/civilizational "outlaws," "outliers" and, generally speaking, "troublemakers;" this, rather than as religious/ civilizational champions, patriots and heroes (to wit: necessary "means to an end" guys -- at times when the weak must try to defend themselves against the strong)?