Iraq Reverts

[Gaspar]

I like the way someone put it on CNN just a moment ago.  "We are living in the age of faculty lounge foreign policy."   I think that's a perfect analogy.

Apparently, the president gave a speech earlier today on the results of his "violent extremism" summit, and basically focused on opportunities for women in terrorist countries.  He seems to be stuck in this community organizer role.

I think that's great.  There should be opportunities for women and young men everywhere, but I think perhaps we should focus on killing the terrorists first.  I think if we stop all of the folks who are killing, raping, and mutilating other people because of their religion or sex, we would have a better chance of providing education and jobs for those being targeted.  Just a thought.

100% of president Obama's effort (off the golf course) is being spent attempting not to acknowledge, in any way, the ideology behind the threat.  He wants to fight the 'idea' of extremism, but to fight an idea, it is necessary to identify the idea. 

Yes, it is very sad that young people (men & women) do not have much opportunity for jobs in Iraq and Syria, but that is not what is making them into terrorists. Yes, we should encourage and even fund opportunities and ideologies in foreign countries that promote liberty, freedom, and opportunity, but first, we need to address the problem at hand, that is now sweeping across the Middle East, and African continent, and will eventually arrive at our doorstep if unchecked.

I think the new Jobs for Jihadists program is just dandy, but lets talk about it later after we address the immediate problem.

[Townsend]

Obama Calls The Idea That The West Is At War With Islam 'An Ugly Lie'

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/obama-calls-idea-west-war-islam-ugly-lie

"The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie and all of us —regardless of our faith — have a responsibility to reject it," President Obama said Thursday, at a summit on defusing violent extremism.

The statement echoes the president's remarks from Wednesday, when Obama said it's crucial to change the narrative about the intersection of religion, particularly Islam, and modern society. He called it "a generational challenge," as Eyder reported for the Two-Way.

Instead of focusing on Islam, the president and others have said at the summit, the U.S. and other countries should be trying to snip away at terrorism's ideological, economic and political roots.

Obama spoke on the issue today for more than 20 minutes, urging countries not to help lend legitimacy to extremist groups such as ISIS. Here are some highlights:

"Nations need to break the cycles of conflict — especially sectarian conflict — that are magnets for violent extremism."

"We have to confront the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al-Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempts to use Islam to justify their violence."

"When people, especially young people, feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities — where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment."

"We must acknowledge that groups like al-Qaeda and ISL are deliberately targeting their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth. Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push back — not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations, that America and the West are somehow at war with Islam, or seek to suppress Muslims, or that we are the cause of every ill in the Middle East."

Even before the U.S.-hosted Summit on Countering Violent Extremism began in Washington this week, the White House has been criticized for its position against using terms that directly link Islam or Muslims to terrorism.

Last month, Politico's Rich Lowry complained of "a haze of euphemism and cowardice" in a January article about the White House's stance, written in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.

That prompted The New York Times' Thomas Friedman to write, "I am all for restraint on the issue, and would never hold every Muslim accountable for the acts of a few. But it is not good for us or the Muslim world to pretend that this spreading jihadist violence isn't coming out of their faith community."

Yesterday, The Times explored the administration's stance:

"Obama aides say there is a strategic logic to his vocabulary: Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as 'Islamic' would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do, they say, is imply that the United States lumps the world's 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups."

Today, Obama said, "When people spew hatred towards others because of their faith or because they are immigrants, it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which they reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment — and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey."

[heironymouspasparagus]

I like the way someone put it on CNN just a moment ago.  "We are living in the age of faculty lounge foreign policy."   I think that's a perfect analogy.

Apparently, the president gave a speech earlier today on the results of his "violent extremism" summit, and basically focused on opportunities for women in terrorist countries.  He seems to be stuck in this community organizer role.

I think that's great.  There should be opportunities for women and young men everywhere, but I think perhaps we should focus on killing the terrorists first.  I think if we stop all of the folks who are killing, raping, and mutilating other people because of their religion or sex, we would have a better chance of providing education and jobs for those being targeted.  Just a thought.

100% of president Obama's effort (off the golf course) is being spent attempting not to acknowledge, in any way, the ideology behind the threat.  He wants to fight the 'idea' of extremism, but to fight an idea, it is necessary to identify the idea.  

Yes, it is very sad that young people (men & women) do not have much opportunity for jobs in Iraq and Syria, but that is not what is making them into terrorists. Yes, we should encourage and even fund opportunities and ideologies in foreign countries that promote liberty, freedom, and opportunity, but first, we need to address the problem at hand, that is now sweeping across the Middle East, and African continent, and will eventually arrive at our doorstep if unchecked.

I think the new Jobs for Jihadists program is just dandy, but lets talk about it later after we address the immediate problem.

Typical RWRE doublespeak gobble-dee-goop.  If ya don't start to address the root causes AT the same time, there will always be a new crop of terrorists to kill.  There will always be the "immediate problem", which is great for us and all the other big arms merchants in the world, but not so much for the people.  There will be terrorists for a long time, but somewhere along the line, something different has to be done to actually have a change.  You would have thought anyone with a brain would start to figure that one out just by watching what has gone on in Israel for the last 60 years or so.  Guess not, so far....

Even Ireland and the UK finally, after 400 years, figured it out...  Since we are only half that age, and the reactionary fervor that is still so strong in this country, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes us another 200 years.

Not to even touch on the effects of our meddling in other countries and the reactions we get from that....

You either have to kill everyone - OR start to work with them at some level.

[Gaspar]

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Walmart is raising their wages by a $1.00 an hour and say it will enhance the shopping experience at their stores. Maybe all these disenfranchised death cult members can find happiness there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/walmart-q4-earnings.html?_r=0

[Gaspar]

Walmart is raising their wages by a $1.00 an hour and say it will enhance the shopping experience at their stores. Maybe all these disenfranchised death cult members can find happiness there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/business/walmart-q4-earnings.html?_r=0

Great opportunity for the unions to get some new blood (no pun).

[Gaspar]

If you kill little girls, I'm not sure what that translates into at a job fair.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

If you kill little girls, I'm not sure what that translates into at a job fair.

Nah, that's an auctioneer trying to get more than $160.00 for her.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

If they want really good pay and benefits, the Pacific Maritime Association may be looking for workers. Pay is $26 to $41 an hour, and free health care for life.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ports-labor-20150218-story.html#page=1

[Breadburner]

All beef....

[Red Arrow]

If they want really good pay and benefits, the Pacific Maritime Association may be looking for workers. Pay is $26 to $41 an hour, and free health care for life.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ports-labor-20150218-story.html#page=1

I couldn't get the article. My browser is not the latest and greatest.

Do they want to hire ISIS folks to keep the cost of health insurance low?

[TheArtist]

I still say "stay out of it".  What is our interest there? It's not lives lost because that mantle would go to a lot of other African country conflicts. Why aren't the Chinese in there spending millions to launch drones and rockets? The Russians, the Europeans (it's right on their border and they could be taking the lead if they wanted), or heck leave it to those in the direct neighborhood.  Why do we seem to be more concerned about it than the rest?

Whenever we meddle in those affairs it gives them the excuse to hate us.  The election in Egypt that seemed by most observers to duly elect a new president, well we didn't like who he was so put pressure on things to throw him out and get someone else in.  I thought that was one of the most terrible foreign policy mistakes in the last decade.  The best, biggest signal we could have sent would have been to have said, though we may not like the guy who got elected, we honor the election.  But instead we brought back "shades of the Shah" memories by working to oust the guy. Things very likely would have gone awry anyway, but it wouldn't look like we keep a double standard. Sure we want elections, but oops, only if it results in someone we like.  

Also, we should not be friends with the Saudis and should not be doing business with them.

What we should be doing is being a good example in the world.  Work more closely with those share more of our values.  Help people in need whenever we can.  Be a "light unto the world" of good.  

Wouldn't it be nice if those people over there could look at us and think, "wow, thats a great country I want to have something like that here". Not "I hate it that they are propping up a regime that I don't like and can't possibly now change because the US is giving them so much power." or " I hate it that they keep trying to topple my government, though I don't like them, my government can parlay the meddling into just enough nationalist fever to keep themselves in power and call me a collaborating traitor if I try to make changes."  

It can seem as though we are "keeping stability here" or preventing some deaths there. But the meddling just makes things worse in the end.  Save 500 lives this time, then next 5,000 are lost, then go in and save 5,000 the next time to later have 50,000 lost.  No matter how bad it may look or that you may be doing the right thing, unless you go all in, and I mean aaaaall in, and we are not going to do that, those societies are so different, the cultural differences so deep and pervasive, your not going to make things better, it will only be worse.... and they will hate you.

  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Whenever we meddle in those affairs it gives them the excuse to hate us.  The election in Egypt that seemed by most observers to duly elect a new president, well we didn't like who he was so put pressure on things to throw him out and get someone else in.  I thought that was one of the most terrible foreign policy mistakes in the last decade.  The best, biggest signal we could have sent would have been to have said, though we may not like the guy who got elected, we honor the election.  But instead we brought back "shades of the Shah" memories by working to oust the guy. Things very likely would have gone awry anyway, but it wouldn't look like we keep a double standard. Sure we want elections, but oops, only if it results in someone we like.  

Just like Iran.  Panama.  Venezuela.  Afghanistan.  Phillipines.  Viet Nam.  Attempted China. 

[Gaspar]

Fresh from the State Dept, I give you the result from the White House Summit (AKA Obama Speech NO. 2,467).  A brand new meme, and set of Twitter accounts and hashtags.



We can now close this combat terrorism Violent Extremism task and move on to addressing global warming again.

Has anyone else picked up on the psychological aspect of how the Obama administration tackles every issue?  Extra credit if you've figured it out.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

We can now close this combat terrorism Violent Extremism Death Cult thuggery task and move on to addressing global warming again.

Has anyone else picked up on the psychological aspect of how the Obama administration tackles every issue?  Extra credit if you've figured it out.

FIFY on the first part, and for the bonus points, Spin Cycle?