President Obama is very upset at his critics, who are taking him and his administration to task for refusing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe our enemy in the terror war.
During his speech on Tuesday, in referring to the term “radical Islam,” the president stated angrily:
What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.
It is interesting to note that our enemy has quite a preoccupation with this very same “political distraction.”
Indeed, back in 2011, Muslim Brotherhood front groups approached the Obama administration and demanded to look at the training materials for the FBI and law enforcement agencies to see what words they were using. It’s curious that instead of telling the Brotherhood to go away with the explanation that labels didn’t “accomplish” or “change” anything, the administration docilely obliged. More curious still, when the Brotherhood returned and demanded that all mention of words connected to Islam, such as “jihad,” “Sharia” and “radical Islam,” be purged from the manuals, the administration again docilely obliged.
To continue reading, CLICK HERE.
One thought on “Obama vs. Sun Tzu — by Jamie Glazov at Breitbart”
Clausewitz is more to the point :because of the onerous nature of war, a “defeatist” or anti-war faction will rise among each of the opponents, who will encourage the defeatists in each other’s camp in order to destroy their opponents’ will.
This is why, traditionally, all communication with an enemy was forbidden and punished during war.
Since WW2, however, we have often not declared war and even carried on political negotiations with our enemies during the fighting, it’s no wonder that jihadists have, at this point, because part of our government.
The Hippie Peace Movement was organized by Communists and the model by which to defeat America.
The worse part of this subversive propaganda is the cultural distortion.
Pacifism (aka “Love”) and the sexual revolution was a subversive Communist Idea.
Today, we have “moderate Muslims” just like we have “moderate men” or girlie-boys whose identity is of the imagination and not connected to anything real, just like we have moderate Christians who actually defer to the state in any conflict with Christian doctrine.
Traditionally, men are men, women are women, Muslims are Muslims and Christians are Christian, iaw public doctrine. Any deviation is regarded as a failure, not the norm.
Muslims, “”radical Muslims”, are very aware of our weaknesses and don’t want to become like us and in this, they have my sympathy.
Most of our problems are of the making of our own decadent nature and defeating the jihad won’t stop our own downward spiral.
It could actually render a victory against jihad meaningless if the civilization and culture we fight for turns out to be more of a menace to ourselves than Islam, and this is possible.
And that, perhaps, is the major reason no one wants to fight for it, to begin with.
We’re not moral, or Christian, or really much of anything.
We don’t have a plan to balance our budget, much less defeat a determined enemy.
We don’t even have a plan, anymore, for reliving ourselves in public places. (It used to be pretty easy to figure that one out).
It’s no wonder we’re having trouble with this.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka suggests our battle cry should be ‘the Constitution”. However, half America doesn’t support it, anymore. We’ve lost a good deal of the 1st Amendment and now, we’re after the 2nd, again.
In Europe, England and the Common Wealth, they never had Freedom of Speech as in America. Then, they gave up their weapons. Then, they lost control of their governments and then, their entire nation.
If the West has indeed become that weak, then it will fall.
The West has inverted the Traditional hierarchy of God, Politics, State, economy into a welfare state, in which the common good is nothing more than an easy life. Islamic Total Government might actually supply that as easily as any other if that’s really all that anyone wants.