Security and political correctness

[SillyAmerican]

The bombings in Brussels have brought the following responses:

Laura Ingraham, Editor-In-Chief of Lifezette -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Van Hipp, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any chance that Clinton and Sanders will state that the attack in Brussels was caused by radical Islamic terrorists? If not, are they simply perpetuating the problem?

And why can't we put entry/exit fingerprinting in place? Do we enjoy the process of gathering recommendations after a national tragedy, only to then go about ignoring them? These are common sense items. Remember that the biggest improvement to the safety of the flying public was realized by putting locks on the cabin doors of the airplanes!

[heatmaster]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

[Kevin]

The bombings in Brussels have brought the following responses:

Laura Ingraham, Editor-In-Chief of Lifezette -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Van Hipp, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any chance that Clinton and Sanders will state that the attack in Brussels was caused by radical Islamic terrorists? If not, are they simply perpetuating the problem?

And why can't we put entry/exit fingerprinting in place? Do we enjoy the process of gathering recommendations after a national tragedy, only to then go about ignoring them? These are common sense items. Remember that the biggest improvement to the safety of the flying public was realized by putting locks on the cabin doors of the airplanes!

I pretty much agree with the sentiment about politcal correctness and terrorism except for Laura Ingrham's knock that we shouldn't allow refugees in because they "aren't Christian."

However, they both have a point imo. For instance, I was reading a Foreign Policy Magazine article recently on why the Democratic Presidental candidates have for the most part refused to talk about militant Islam at all. And how many observers incl. in the Middle East were preplexed by that considering from what I understand they describle violent Islamists using many viewpoints that are considered "politically incorrect"

[BundouYMB]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

Actually you can't, they're dead. But good to know that won't stop you from claiming to speak for them and using them to further your political agenda.

[This account no longer in use.]

I would opt for Security correctness over political correctness any day, and you can ask the 34 people killed in the Brussels airport and subway bomb attacks today.

Actually you can't, they're dead. But good to know that won't stop you from claiming to speak for them and using them to further your political agenda.

Just ignore Heatmaster. I'm 99.9% sure he's some sort of white supremacist.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

[The Free North]

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."
–Christopher Dawson

[Suburbia]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

[Suburbia]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

about """political correctness"""

[RightBehind]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

[SillyAmerican]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

[RightBehind]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

As a Democrat myself, I have no clue. I am all in favor of Muslims having their right to freedom of religion and free speech so long as they trample the rights of others, which ISIL does.

[Alcon]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

about """political correctness"""

It kind of irritates me that I've seen you post hundreds of snarky one-liner replies, but I'm not sure I've ever seen you engage in a single substantive discussion.

[catographer]

What's the difference between Democrats condemning terrorism while not emphasizing the attackers religion, versus Republicans condemning terrorism while emphasizing it? Is one response more correct than the other? No, not really. It's terrorism, everybody is working hard to deal with it. There's no responsibility or necessity on our part to put religion on a pedestal in the debate.

The motives of the terrorists are of  course up for discussion, and while the terrorists say publicly that their motivations are religious, I think it would actually be the wiser thing to do to take a step back and understand that the religious motivations they espouse are in fact proxies and façades for their real motives, which are of political nature. Arab Muslims didn't wake up one day, read a couple words in the Quran and decide to kill infidels. The religious texts didn't make them #triggered or set their metaphorical fuses off. Religion is used by them as an outlet for their terrorist activity; it's not the source of the terrorism.

[RightBehind]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

Looking at your link confirms my belief how I feel about political correctness and it's a case-by-case basis for me.

Sometimes PC is needed. Other times it's too ridiculous. I look at this link and I see examples of both.

The opening remarks seem to be whining about Christian persecution and saying that gays are wrong. I am an atheist. Love Jesus all you want. If you're one of these far right loons trying to run for office or you're a talk show host/televangelist, go kick rocks.

Things I have issue with, PC wise.

#1 No criticizing pedophilia? Really? Someone as liberal as I am thinks child molesters are some of the worst people on the planet and should never be let out of prison. If you are sexually attracted to children but haven't molested anybody, please get serious help before you do one of  the worst things in humanity.

#2 Okay, I support the Constitutional rights of Muslims and Islam under the free exercise clause, but this is ridiculous. As someone who voted for our president, I am disappointed in this.

#3 I live in Cook County. Believe me when I say I've seen more Christian billboards than atheist ones.

Numbers 4, 5 and 6 are ridiculous. I'm okay with criminals who committed lesser offenses getting work, not felons. One issue I break party lines on is I am opposed to illegal immigration.

I can see how #9 might be interpreted as racist, but how is this not protected from the Tinker vs. Des Moines precedent?

#10 Chris Matthews is a loon. Period.

#14 I agree with. I'm for a woman becoming president, so long as I agree with her positions.

#17 For real? I am against misogyny but how is this a thing?

Ones on the list I disagree with.

#7 Don't take the high road and preach family values to us. Family values are good in theory. It's too bad many conservatives are do as I say, not as I do, concerning this.

#8 With racism still being very much prevalent in our country, what's wrong with attacking white privilege?

#11 These are the state making license plates endorsing political positions. Have license plates endorsing both sides, or none at all.

#12 Let me play my violin. Gays are hated and discriminated against despite the massive steps taken towards their equality. Stop whining about faux Christian persecution in America and condemn real Christian persecution overseas.

#15 I don't know the context, but I don't want government programs endorsing any religion.

#20 Big sports fan here. While I've watched a lot of the NFL in my life, I'm also aware of the prevalence of concussions in the game and there should be reforms.


So yeah, like I said, there should be a middle ground in terms of political correctness.

[Kingpoleon]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

I also cannot believe we are seriously doing this. This is radical Islam, agree and then find a solution. Do not dodge saying radical Islam, and do not hit so hard on their stupidity. Hit hard on the solution. Both parties are being very stupid about this.

Then again, I do belong to the only organized political party in America.

[RightBehind]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

I also cannot believe we are seriously doing this. This is radical Islam, agree and then find a solution. Do not dodge saying radical Islam, and do not hit so hard on their stupidity. Hit hard on the solution. Both parties are being very stupid about this.

Then again, I do belong to the only organized political party in America.

I predict a domino effect. The day conservatives successfully ban Islam is the day they'll start nitpicking the bad things about other non-Christian faiths, trying to ban them also.

That's one of the fears I have about banning Muslims and outlawing Islam.

[136or142]

Why can't we have both? Why can't we have thorough vetting of people we let into this country while remaining respectful to immigrants for who they are?

Yes, that would be ideal. And there are several straight-forward things that can be done if we're willing, the fingerprinting being a good one.

But I really wonder why the reluctance on the part of Democrats to call out radical Islamic terrorists. Do they think they might hurt the feelings of non-radical, mainstream Muslims? The act of not identifying it as what it is seems to only be leading to further problems.

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Sorry, but I disagree. "Political correctness" is rampant in the U.S.

Here's a list of 20 pretty clear examples of what we're referring to:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/20-outrageous-examples-that-show-how-political-correctness-is-taking-over-america

ISIL has lost something like 40% of its territory in Iraq and 20% of its territory in Syria over the last 18 months or so mainly thanks to allied air strikes coordinated with Kurdish or Iraqi troops fighting on the ground, and something like 20,000 ISIL fighters have been killed over the same period.

I think this is the reason why the only criticism the opponents of Obama can come up with are that he won't call ISIL what they want him to call them.

It also strikes me that demanding that Obama call ISIL this specific term is every bit as much engaging in P.C as not using that term.

[Virginiá]

ISIL has lost something like 40% of its territory in Iraq and 20% of its territory in Syria over the last 18 months or so mainly thanks to allied air strikes coordinated with Kurdish or Iraqi troops fighting on the ground, and something like 20,000 ISIL fighters have been killed over the same period.

I think this is the reason why the only criticism the opponents of Obama can come up with are that he won't call ISIL what they want him to call them.

It also strikes me that demanding that Obama call ISIL this specific term is every bit as much engaging in P.C as not using that term.

This (though not sure on statistics there, but they have lost a lot of territory)

The whole "radical Islam" bit is just a political tool to beat Obama/Democrats with. Period. Other than that, it has no purpose and means nothing, unless one wants to get all philosophical for the sake of keeping this bs discussion alive. So that's it. It's not even worth the discussion.

[136or142]

ISIL has lost something like 40% of its territory in Iraq and 20% of its territory in Syria over the last 18 months or so mainly thanks to allied air strikes coordinated with Kurdish or Iraqi troops fighting on the ground, and something like 20,000 ISIL fighters have been killed over the same period.

I think this is the reason why the only criticism the opponents of Obama can come up with are that he won't call ISIL what they want him to call them.

It also strikes me that demanding that Obama call ISIL this specific term is every bit as much engaging in P.C as not using that term.

This (though not sure on statistics there, but they have lost a lot of territory)

The whole "radical Islam" bit is just a political tool to beat Obama/Democrats with. Period. Other than that, it has no purpose and means nothing, unless you want to get all philosophical for the sake of keeping this bs discussion alive. So that's it. It's not even worth the discussion.

Thanks. I've also read differing numbers on the loss of territory, but the loss of ISIL fighters I heard just a few days ago from a very credible source (even though it was on the not very credible program Coast to Coast)

It's not my place, but not even is this silliness over the term not worth the discussion, in my opinion this discussion should also be in the U.S General board and not this section.

This was the guest:
n the first half, Malcolm Nance, a former naval intelligence counter-terrorism officer specializing in the Middle East, joined George to talk about the complicated origins of Al Qaeda and ISIS. He began with the war in Afghanistan that ended with the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1989. The United States considered Osama Bin Laden an ally, since at the time, he was in charge of much of the logistics, recruiting, and money supporting the Muslim freedom fighters. Nance said that by the end of the war, Bin Laden had embraced an extreme radicalized form of Islam and contrary to the leader of the Mujahadeen, who wanted the Muslim soldiers to go home, Bin Laden saw this as an opportunity to create a united nation of Islam. This, he says, was the beginning of Al Qaeda.

Nance described ISIS as an even more radicalized form of fundamentalist Islam, even moreso than Al Qaeda, which both stem from a strict interpretation of the faith known as "Salafism." Nance described the consequence of the US defeat of the Hussein regime in Iraq as a power vacuum which many radical groups (most notably ISIS) rushed in and took over. Nance called ISIS "a conglomeration of everyone we fought in Iraq from 2003 to 2007." He also believes that the group is an extreme example of "Islamic cultism" who intend to cleanse the faith of any tolerance and ignite their version of Armageddon. As far as a strategy to defeat this elusive enemy, Nance says that they are fighting a "hybrid war," which is half insurgent and half terrorist, and should be countered by special operations units only. Nance says it is important to fight the ideology of ISIS, and not the religion of Islam.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2016/03/16

Anybody who wants to hear the program can go to cknw.com, click on 'on demand' and then on 'audio vault' it aired on March 16 from 10PM to midnight.

He also explained why Obama (and every other western ally) doesn't want to use that term.

Edit: just to add, the write-up I posted didn't make it clear that Nance was referring to Arab Special Operations Units.  He said that it was very important that western nations only assist with coordinated air strikes and training and that all the 'boots on the ground' must come from other Muslim countries.

Coast to Coast is such an amusing program.  This guest was followed up with a guest who discussed something about the "Venus Children."

[pbrower2a]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

Bingo.  That's why I reject the use of such insults as "trailer trash". 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

about """political correctness"""

It kind of irritates me that I've seen you post hundreds of snarky one-liner replies, but I'm not sure I've ever seen you engage in a single substantive discussion.

there is no substantive discussion to be had with someone who believes "political correctness" is about beïng "afraid to speak the truth". it's the same level of absurdity as the "atheïsts know god exists but don't want to admit it because they're evil or whatever" types.

[Alcon]

Also, there's no such thing as "political correctness." It's called being sensitive to the fact that people who are different than you are still entitled to respect as human beings. I understand that is a difficult concept for some Republicans.

It's not that, Hagrid. People like you are causing more problems because you're afraid to speak the truth. The truth needs to be told about what caused what happened today.

hagrid is the one telling the truth here, sweetie.

The truth about what?

about """political correctness"""

It kind of irritates me that I've seen you post hundreds of snarky one-liner replies, but I'm not sure I've ever seen you engage in a single substantive discussion.

there is no substantive discussion to be had with someone who believes "political correctness" is about beïng "afraid to speak the truth". it's the same level of absurdity as the "atheïsts know god exists but don't want to admit it because they're evil or whatever" types.

OK, that may be in this case, but I meant more generally.  Maybe you only reply to completely merit-free arguments (why?) or maybe you think that all arguments you disagree with are merit-free (really?)...

Idk, why attack the weakest argument you see and then bounce?  I don't get it