It’s predictable, but also quite sad and pathetic that nearly all the GOP candidates have chosen to blast the Democrats use of the term “radical jihadists” instead of “radical islam” when criticizing terrorism in general and the recent deadly attacks in Paris in particular.
Typified, of course, by Trump.
Yes, because only by stating the super-duper magical word “Islamic terrorism” will things mystically turn into sunshine and rainbows for all the world.
There is of course a counter answer to this, one which was presented by several candidates at last night’s Democratic debate, but it seems to be one that Republicans will never understand or accept even though the first person to take this particular position was President George W. Bush.
Last night Secretary Clinton among others explain why they preferred not to demonize an entire religion over the actions of a few, arguing that one of our greatest resources in this fight remains with members of the Muslim faith itself.
"I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists," Clinton responded. Dickerson interrupted her to clarify that Rubio "didn't say all Muslims. He said 'radical Islam.'"
Clinton went on to say that one of George W. Bush's contributions after the Sept. 11 attacks was to publicly declare the U.S. was not at war with Islam or Muslims, but with violent extremism.
…
"We've got to reach out to Muslim countries," she said. "If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam ..."
Just as conservatives repeatedly demand of them, but seem to be completely oblivious of when it occurs, many Muslim groups have condemned the Paris attacks.
On Saturday, a coalition of eight leading national and local American Muslim groups, held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to condemn the carnage.
The New York-based Islamic Circle of North America, a member of the coalition group, said the organization “stands united with the people of France” and urged the French authorities to take “swift action in apprehending the perpetrators of this attack and bring them to justice.”
The group’s president, Naeem Baid, added: “This kind of violence is inhuman and barbaric and is not justifiable by any religion.”
In response to Clinton and the other Dem candidates Republicans virtually exploded in tweet form and others with a steaming heap of demonifying.
More Huck.
“It’s become apparent on the Democratic side, whether it is the current president or the one who wishes to be president, they’re more interested in protecting the image of Islam than they are protecting Americans,” Huckabee told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Rubio in response to Clinton’s comments.
“That would be like saying we weren’t at war with Nazis, because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi Party but weren’t violent themselves,” Rubio told host George Stephanopolous. “We are at war with radical Islam, with an interpretation of Islam by a significant number of people around the world, who they believe now justifies them in killing those who don’t agree with their ideology. This is a clash of civilizations.”
Ted Cruz.
According to the Washington Post, Ted Cruz also attacked President Obama, saying, “I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country. He may have been tired of war, but our enemies are not tired of killing us. And they’re getting stronger.”
So we basically see where they all stand. This is a “Clash of Civilizations” as if there were millions of Muslims on one side and millions of non-Muslims on the other, as opposed to the Democratic view that there are billions on our side, including Muslims, and a few thousand jihadist — who actually are killing more of their fellow Muslims than anyone else— on the other side.
It’s a real shame that you can find a far better example of how to properly respond to this without bigotry in the response by sets of French mourners at a vigil who chased off a set of anti-Islamic protestors.
The vigil began at 3 p.m. local time but was quickly interrupted by about 15 members of far-right group, the French National Front. The group angered grief-stricken vigil attendees by shouting, “Expel Islamists,” throwing firecrackers and unfurling an Islamophobic banner.
But the bigots were quickly forced to leave when the crowd of hundreds turned on them and forced them to retreat. Security forces intervened before tensions escalated further, according to the British publication.
This is the party that grossly failed at identifying and responding to the threat of al Qeada before it was too late even when members of the intelligence community were literally screaming about the danger.
According to ex-CIA head George Tenet and Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, they called an emergency meeting with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 of 2001 saying they had evidence that an attack on the U.S. was imminent and that it would be “spectacular.”
Beginning in May of 2001, Tenet and Black launched an initiative called “the Blue Sky paper” and pitched it to Bush’s national security team. The CIA called for a joint CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat by “getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”
According to Tenet, the Bush administration said they wanted to back-burner the plan.
“And the word back,” claims Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,’” meaning they didn’t want a paper trail.
This is the party that after ignoring bin Laden then went into Iraq promising that it would “pay for itself”, “we’d be greeted as liberators”, “we doubt there will be any sectarian violence”, and on and on.
They were dead wrong about all of it.
Radical Jihadists have proven to be a resilient challenge, to the U.S. and the world. An exact and truly winning strategy to combat this type of asymmetric terrorism is still yet to be developed, but one place we really should not start is by alienating Muslims thereby justifying the jihadist own rhetoric that this struggle is over the existence and prominence of Islam itself, when that is far, far from the case.
The very last we should to is allow cowards and bigots to confirm the worst things that the jihadist claim about who we are.