More savagery from the IslamoNazis that Obama wont call what they are!

[Xavier_Onassis]

The war in Syria is a war of Sunnis vs Shiites, Fundamentalists vs more educated Muslims, and on top of that the "Islamic State" against everyone. There is no way the US could resolve this: Syria is far more complex than Iraq, and we have seen that this country cannot successfully influence Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, or even Afghani Sunnis divided among Pastuns, Daris and all the other groups.

The best we can do is provide support to eliminate Dash (IS) from the running. The Lebanese Civil War lasted a decade, and Syria is more like Lebanon than anywhere else.

[sirs]

The war we're fighting, the one that is a war against us isn't Sunni or Shiite, isn't fundamentalists or educated, its a war against Radical Islam.  You really think we're in a war with Shiites??

And no, trying to take out 1 component, be it ISIS, or Boko Haram, doesn't kill this....or even slot it down.  THAT's why we need to label it what it is.  It's not calling anyone names, and its not for Arabic consumption, its to establish who & what exactly we're at war with, so as to better strategize and deal with it.  Which would include giving those Arab nations/governments being targeted by them the knowledge that we're on their aide, and can expect alot of military assistance

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Xavier_Onassis]

We have labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist organization,and we have declared war on terrorists, so it seems that we are something like at war with at least some Shiites. Again., the problem is that the term "Radical Muslims" when translated cannot be distinguished from terms that mean "devout Muslims" or "pure Muslims". We can and have named the groups we are fighting with clearly, so this is just an issue for morons to harp on.

[sirs]

Again., the problem is that the term "Radical Muslims" when translated cannot be distinguished from terms that mean "devout Muslims" or "pure Muslims".

Why??  That's what interpreters are for.  That's what the Government leaders are for.....to clearly explain the difference.  When one is explaining something to someone, and if there's any confusion as to what the term means, you provide examples and specifics that can absolutely differentiate between them

You seriously believe the predominance of the Muslims on this globe are that unable to grasp such a simple clarification.  They're that dumb?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that the entire issue about what derogatory insult toi hurl at these these particular fanatics in a language most of them do not understand is utterly useless.

Consider this statement:

"Sticks and stones make break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

I am pretty sure one thing these fanatic understand is the above.
Perhaps we should give their opponents more sticks.
Perhaps we should provide more stones.

A discussion of the words to call them is an idiot's game.

And YOU are one very persistent idiot.

You are just wasting your time arguing otherwise, because you are clearly full of shit

See? none of that hurt you. JUst as the saying claims.

[Plane]

....................,      the problem is that the term "Radical Muslims" when translated cannot be distinguished from terms that mean "devout Muslims" or "pure Muslims".             .........................................

  I like this point.

    The translator himself needs to not only to understand what he is translating, but has to faithfully translate with proper nuance.

 http://blog.rev.com/articles/translation/interpreter-mistake-offends-poland/

    A translation with improper nuance got President Carter a bit of trouble .

    And an unscrupulous translator could make your little wrong nuance , the main point he makes.

       Our Government has maintained for two centuries that we are not interested in suppression of Islam or striking persons because they are Muslims. Is the Presidents careful parsing of words helping maintain this ?

       Unscrupulous translators can still lie can't they?

[sirs]

I think that the entire issue about what derogatory insult toi hurl at these these particular fanatics in a language most of them do not understand is utterly useless.

You just can't help yourself, can you.  It's like trying to have a rational conversation with a turnip.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT CALLING ANYONE NAMES OR HURLING INSULTS.  Calling this a war on Radical Islam, is no different than when we were at war with Fascism in WWII, and against Communism, during the Korean/Vietnam/Cold wars.  It's not calling a red duck that they're a flat billed feather-brained bird, it's calling a red duck, a red duck

You also keep contradicting yourself......if they largely can't understand, than what's the problem.  This isn't for their consumption, this is simply for clarity as to who we're at war against.  Any "confusion" that apparently all those dumb Muslims you believe there are, can be addressed with translators and Muslim leaders who can clearly articulate between a bad duck and a good duck

[Xavier_Onassis]

We know what they are, they know what they are, I fail to see the point of your constant blathering about this idiotic issue.
You seem to be saying I agree with what the Presidrnt wants to do, but because of ONE WORD, I hate Obama, I hate Obama, I hate Obama.

[sirs]

Oh the I hate Bush, I hate Bush, I hate Bush, irony

No, we don't....our damn community organizer and chief can't seem to bring himself to call them, what they are, and what we are at war with.  The "idiotic issue" is accurately citing what we are at war against.  That in itself is the 1st step towards applying a coherent strategy to attack & destroy it

Not to mention that I don't agree with what Obama is doing....its been demonstrated, over , and over, and over again, its utter failure, largely because of the incoherency in policy and military projection.  I have no clue what he wants to do, since his actions are no where close to his words

I feel sorry for you in how you paint such a large portion of the global population as so dumb, they could not possibly grasp the difference between a radical militarized Islamic terrorist, and simply being a true Muslim

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is pretty hard to distinguish between a true Christian and a homicidal Christian until he pulls out his trusty Roscoe.

You cannot fight "radical Islam" anymore than you can fight "bad Christians" or "fanatical Jews". It is not like they wear uniforms or wear little badges the way Republican candidates wear tiny US flag pins. The fight is against armed and dangerous fanatics, who do not necessarily identify themselves before striking.

The net result of our President saying what you want him to say would be nil or actually detrimental, because a bad translation might actually cause otherwise peaceful Muslims to rise up and join the actual enemy. Does the President have translators?  Yes.  Do you or the fool who drew that stupid cartoon you posted? No.

[sirs]

It is pretty hard to distinguish between a true Christian and a homicidal Christian until he pulls out his trusty Roscoe.

So your plan is to assume every Christian is homicidal??  Based on what?.....the crusades??  Here's a hint, a radical Islamic terrorist is the one carrying the AK47, RPG, and/or beheading innocent civilians, when they're not flying planes into buildings

You cannot fight "radical Islam" anymore than you can fight "bad Christians" or "fanatical Jews".

Of course you can....they're organized, weaponized, and frequently group together.  You locate them, and you kill them.  You can generally find them in battle against either us or one of allies.  You'd kill the same way with bad Christians and fanatical jews, if they were organizing in the same way.....which they aren't, much less actually existing in any way currently, compared to those radicalized Islamic terrorists, who currently exist in the tens of thousands

The net result of our President saying what you want him to say would be...

to give clear, moral clarity as to who we are at war with, and who we will assist, in whatever military manner we can.  It would provide improved morale with our troops, knowing that we actually have a credible enemy we're focusing our attention and resources against, and would lend superior knowledge to our allies, that we have their back, in this global war against Radical Islam

And the kicker is this isn't some RW rant, regarding labeling the duck a duck.  Numerous Democrat politicians and pundits have been echoing the same damn thing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is indeed a rightwing rant. If some Democrats also have been saying this, perhaps they are infected with the same contagion.

I can just hear a conversation with a couple of our soldiers...

Sgt. Darrell:  "Say, Corporal Darrell, are you going to shot that there Ay-rab or not?"

Corp. Darrell: "I wuz thinkin' eggzactly that thang, but  since the President refuses to call them a Radical Mooslinmb, my morale is pretty low."

[sirs]

It is indeed a rightwing rant.

Right...because all those Democrats, expressing the fallacy of the attempted misguided moral equivalence are right wingers...or have been bought off by...the Koch brothers, yea that's it.  Andrea Mitchell, hard core closet conservative   

[Xavier_Onassis]

As they say in Spanish..."En su casa le conocen."

In her house they know her.