K-9

Do you appreciate the difference between people who are Muslim and the Muslim people

It wasn't me. I was quoting another contributor in this thread who said that.

I was being rhetorical, but I'm glad you made this point. It's ironic that the Middle East, much if it made rich by its resources, is such a fertile ground for the recruitment of young people to follow these mad sects. It's no coincidence that countries like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't share the wealth, has so many more young men joining terrorist groups vs. say, Kuwait, which invests it's wealth in its people and their young men are far less apt to join an ISIS of al Qaeda. I haven't checked in a few years, but at one point the unemployment rate for men 18-24 in Saudi Arabia was nearly 50%. That is inexcusable in such a rich land.

I am concerned about the rise of Christian fundamentalism in Africa. These zealots are just as cruel in the name of religion as anybody else. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about the sheer numbers or who is worse, the point is that people continue to be persecuted in the name of religion, regardless of which one. The more pertinent question is why and what gives rise to it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/christian-fundamentalism-africa_b_935268.html

Leave the coddled American brain out of it. That is its own sad commentary on our culture, sadly. It isn't as simple as asking leaders in Muslim countries to grasp the nuance as most do and have for a long time. It is their constituencies and the sheer difference in cultures where words, syntax, and context have COMPLETELY different meanings and applications and clarity of translation is difficult if it translates at all. A simple example is the word "jihad" for example. We accept is as "holy war". But in many Muslim cultures, "jihad" is the only context for war, holy or not. In those cultures one might wage "jihad" against a neighbor who stole a goat in the same way he would wage "jihad" against an infidel. I get that we all want our leaders to exhibit the same level of outrage by using preferred language that better illustrates that. But it just isn't that simple when the language is more important in areas of the world we need to curry favor with. Strategically and tactically not using certain words and combinations is the better play. And as I've said repeatedly, we all know who the enemy is by their words and actions and the semantics don't change that or the way in which we combat him. Not in the least. This isn't directed at you, but for anyone to assert that our president and military leadership doesn't understand EXACTLY who we are fighting and why and where, is complete folly and those that do assert that do so only to score political points.

Agree entirely. It's a sad commentary that the great comedians and satirists of the day no longer wish to perform at college venues.

Do we need allies in the predominantly Muslim Middle East now and in the foreseeable future? This has never been about offending politically correct Americans who are over-sensitive to and always on the lookout for the micro-aggressions you cite. It's about something far more strategic.

Can you appreciate the difference between: People who are Muslim. and The Muslim people Or between: Islamist and Islam

Mr. Cohen would do well to cite EVERY Obama reference over the years. He has used the term "Islamic extremists" in the past as well. But when writing an op-ed piece, it's important to shoe-horn language to fit your premise. Of course it's over the top. Hyperbole is a time-honored literary tool for making a point. Saying "muslim acts of bloodthirsty mass murder" is also over the top as well as highly prejudice.

There's a lot of material here to keep the forensic psychiatrists busy for a long time. Quite the dilemma for the conservative news networks, though. Which aspect scores the most political points: repressed homosexuality or ISIL jihadist? Ailes must have been up all night working on today's memo.

As Muslims, are they capable of committing "muslim" acts of bloodthirsty mass murder? The NYPD should immediately replace these officers with Mexicans.

Trump bans the Washington Post after already blacklisting other media outlets from his campaign. Unbelievable. Goebbels would be so proud of his tactics. Iraq OKd the use of Apache helicopters for the first time today. We had offered them earlier, but were refused. I think this is significant in that it portends an increase in American military personnel on the ground and in the air.

The use of the term, "ISIL" is strategic in nature. It automatically increases the sheer geographical dimensions and places on notice every country from Turkey to Egypt in terms of the historical designs ISIS has on its plans for domination. Iraq and Syria are a drop in the bucket. If there are any computer/internet experts here, why is it that ISIS can't be blocked from hosting a website, access to social media, etc.? Seems with all of our cyber-security and cyber-warfare capability, this could be done. I know I'm being hopelessly ignorant (oh no, did I just call myself a bad name?), but any light shed would be appreciated.

You may be accused of being a tinfoil hat guy, but you are not alone. Especially the oil aspect. But there are enough dots to connect. Before 9/11 and before Iraq was a gleam in Bush's eye, Hussein threatened to peg his oil deals to the Euro. When I hear that, I told people that's the straw that broke the camel's back. We can tolerate Hussein's mouse-roaring antics (he was THOROUGHLY CONTAINED afterall), but taking his oil trades off the dollar would upset the apple cart around the world. Anyway, here's a good timeline on some things: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

Russia's oil industry was in shambles and their society in one helluva transition. They weren't a world power and they weren't even at the table. I am not disputing that it was the political leadership of Great Britain and France that was the "face" of the redrawing of the map and the renaming parts of the Ottoman Empire, Mesopotamia, etc. I'm saying that American, British, Dutch, and Turkish oil interests were well represented at the table when consideration was given to the restructuring of the Ottoman Empire. If you get a chance and are interested, look up Calouste Gulbenkian and the Red Line Agreement. I just find it fascinating how historical threads connect.

The price of oil immune to laws of supply and demand? Nope. My point was that there are other hugely mitigating factors, chiefly speculation and the US dollar value worldwide, as the price is pegged to that. But I digress. With all due respect, your previous posts don't provide an answer to my question regarding how semantics impacts strategies and tactics. And as to your bolded sections of my post to indicate "name calling", I submit you haven't seen my brand of name calling. It is fully recognizable. Instead, I think you were simply offended by what I wrote. That was not my intention. More specifically, this is what happens when we let the only two world powers at the time, big oil, and a few powerful bankers and brokers draw lines. I've said it before here, people should read 'The Prize' by Daniel Yergin, the recognized preeminent work on the subject of oil and the geopolitical ramifications since its discovery and mass extraction.

This should be required reading for anyone questioning the role of Maliki's government in fomenting so much discord among Iraq's Sunni population and creating the environment for ISIS to form. If Patraeus was right about anything, it was his assertion that the problems in Iraq could only be solved by a political solution, not a military one. That will never change. And I hope we remember that in the face of the inevitable buildup of US military personnel in Iraq. It is at a trickle at the moment with Obama's decision to send in a coupled hundred marines as well as special ops "advisers" on the ground, but the torrent of troops is coming.

I couldn't have been more wrong about the entire Arya/Jaqen/The Waif arc if I tried. I will not miss The House of Black and White, the Many Faced God, or Braavos at all. But I really like your take on it here. And that look Jaqen gave to Arya at the end was perfect in support of it.

I am not calling anybody names. If it is terms like "ignorant" you are having an issue with, it is not used in a pejorative sense; it simply indicates a lack of knowing. We are all ignorant of things as nobody knows everything. I'm sorry, but the notion that Obama hasn't been aggressive in his prosecution of the war on terror is simply not supported by the vast array of facts that suggest otherwise. If you find that "childish" on my part, so be it. Are you going to take a stab at answering my question regarding how the use of the term "Islamic terrorism" is going to impact strategies and tactics in the fight against it?

There it is, the stereotypical right wing response that indicates the president of the United States doesn't know we are in a war and who the enemy is solely because of semantics. It is the epitome of uninformed rhetoric; a regurgitation of conservative media talking points, nothing more. A grossly ignorant position given the statements made and the actions taken by this administration in its prosecution of the war on terror. Everybody and his grandmother knows who the enemy is by name and by action, regardless of the right's shameful attempt to score political points by suggesting otherwise. There are numerous reasons not to use the phrase, I am still waiting for a coherent explanation by the right detailing how use of the phrase impacts strategies and tactics in the real world.

I disagree. ISIS was born of out al Qaeda in Iraq where they used the equipment and expertise of disaffected Sunni military leaders formerly loyal to Iraq. It helped that Syria spawned an uprising against Assad and al Qaeda in Iraq seized that opportunity to unite with Assad's enemies. But make no mistake, ISIS needed what it brought from Iraq and the footholds it established there in order to invaded Syria. No decisions the US could have made to stop ISIS from happening? Not invading Iraq was one such decision. Oops.

As bad as it was to ignore warnings from top security advisers like Richard Clark, the decision to invade Iraq phucked things up for us for the next hundred years and created the enemy we are now facing. Now the wingnuts will always come out of the woodwork and spout off about "troop withdrawal" or some other such crap to try to try to pass the buck to Obama, but smarter people aren't fooled. Removing Hussein and then installing Maliki, who PURPOSELY EXCLUDED THE SUNNI MINORITY FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ!!!, is what gave way to ISIS. Period. End of phucking story, no matter how much it galls them to think their conservative heroes had anything to do with it.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how saying "Islamic terrorism" will lead to better action in the fight against our enemy. The point is, you and the right wing conservative media harp on this canard that unless Obama uses an exact phrase in describing the enemy, then he doesn't know who the enemy is. Why else insist on your preferred phrase? You don't have to say something verbatim to communicate the meaning of your statement. Go ahead and insist I'm putting words in your mouth if it makes it easier not to respond. But I've yet to hear anyone on the right give a simple answer to the question. Because it's a bullschit question in the first place. Saying "Islamic terrorism" doesn't in any way add to the strategic and tactical efforts to defeat an enemy that everybody and his grandmother knows by name and action. Not saying it curries favor in the very part of the world we need to be engaged. Like I said, the long game. Something you can't seem to grasp in your "everything Obama does is wrong" political blindness. Used to be a time in this country when an attack like this brought out the best in people. I guess anything short of a plane crashing into skyscrapers and killing thousands just doesn't rate anymore.

Can't believe Gleason and Harrington haven't won several Pulitzers between them.

It was when the evangelical Moral Majority co-opted the party in the early 80s that I quit it. For any religious organization to hold such sway in the matter of national governance is anathema to what the founders established, imo. I never really considered other similarities before. But it's interesting.