T Nation

Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/counterterror-adviser-defends-jihad-legitimate-tenet-islam/

Are you fucking kidding me?

The president’s top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” arguing that the term “jihadists” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.”

I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Agreed!!

[quote]Valor wrote:

Are you fucking kidding me?

The president’s top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” arguing that the term “jihadists” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.” [/quote]

I can see his point, when they don’t have religous goals as much as political ones masked in theology.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Why should our leaders care if it pisses off America?? Ask your neighbors on their view of foreign policy and itll be shitpoor. Actually, whatever the majority of Americans say - doing the exact opposite might actually be a wise move.

OMG! Someone was being intellectually rigorous! Damn them!

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]Valor wrote:

Are you fucking kidding me?

The president’s top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” arguing that the term “jihadists” should not be used to describe America’s enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces,” but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in “religious terms.” [/quote]

I can see his point, when they don’t have religous goals as much as political ones masked in theology.
[/quote]

All religious goals are political in nature. You act as if they are separate and dividable things. Though shalt not kill is religious and political. And it being one doesn’t make it any less of the other. Same for kill the infidels.

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Why should our leaders care if it pisses off America?? Ask your neighbors on their view of foreign policy and itll be shitpoor. Actually, whatever the majority of Americans say - doing the exact opposite might actually be a wise move.[/quote]

So, you are against holding public offices accountable to the public through the democratic process? interesting.

edit: I’m sure you held the same view when bush was in office.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Why should our leaders care if it pisses off America?? Ask your neighbors on their view of foreign policy and itll be shitpoor. Actually, whatever the majority of Americans say - doing the exact opposite might actually be a wise move.[/quote]

So, you are against holding public offices accountable to the public through the democratic process? interesting.

edit: I’m sure you held the same view when bush was in office.[/quote]

This isn’t a democracy. Its a republic, or whatever the fuck, they aren’t accountable… - our leaders are elected to make those decisions because the masses have already been deemed unfit for the task.

As for Bush I support his aggressive policies, for example, how many terrorist attacks have their been on U.S. soil since the two wars have started?

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Why should our leaders care if it pisses off America?? Ask your neighbors on their view of foreign policy and itll be shitpoor. Actually, whatever the majority of Americans say - doing the exact opposite might actually be a wise move.[/quote]

So, you are against holding public offices accountable to the public through the democratic process? interesting.

edit: I’m sure you held the same view when bush was in office.[/quote]

This isn’t a democracy. Its a republic, or whatever the fuck, they aren’t accountable… - our leaders are elected to make those decisions because the masses have already been deemed unfit for the task.

As for Bush I support his aggressive policies, for example, how many terrorist attacks have their been on U.S. soil since the two wars have started?[/quote]

I never said we lived in a democracy, But you could call it a representative democracy. Regardless, I said democratic process I.E. the public vote. Are you against voting?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I can’t believe some of this shit. We actually have an administration that hates America.[/quote]

Like I said it seems Obama asks one question to himself before making a decision…

“What is going to really piss off the majority of America”…then they go with that decision.

I’m convinced this is the tactical question asked for every single policy thrown out there. I do not see how ANYONE can defend this administration at all.[/quote]

Why should our leaders care if it pisses off America?? Ask your neighbors on their view of foreign policy and itll be shitpoor. Actually, whatever the majority of Americans say - doing the exact opposite might actually be a wise move.[/quote]

So, you are against holding public offices accountable to the public through the democratic process? interesting.

edit: I’m sure you held the same view when bush was in office.[/quote]

This isn’t a democracy. Its a republic, or whatever the fuck, they aren’t accountable… - our leaders are elected to make those decisions because the masses have already been deemed unfit for the task.

As for Bush I support his aggressive policies, for example, how many terrorist attacks have their been on U.S. soil since the two wars have started?[/quote]

I never said we lived in a democracy, But you could call it a representative democracy. Regardless, I said democratic process I.E. the public vote. Are you against voting?[/quote]

back to the original topic: leaders elected in America are NOT accountable to the public. The public vote doesn’t even make decisions, Congress and the Electoral College do correct?

The Taliban does not represent all of Islam… do you want our leaders to call out and insult ALL of the Islamic nations??

How can we take ANY other approach but a political one? How many armed troops can your church mobilize??

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

back to the original topic: leaders elected in America are NOT accountable to the public. The public vote doesn’t even make decisions, Congress and the Electoral College do correct?

The Taliban does not represent all of Islam… do you want our leaders to call out and insult ALL of the Islamic nations??

How can we take ANY other approach but a political one? How many armed troops can your church mobilize??
[/quote]

Holding accountable doesn’t mean making all the decisions, It means being able to remove them from power. And yes, the originally designed electoral college would make that decision, but the current one does not.

Who said the taliban, this is about jihad. The Taliban (and others) engages in jihad, how is calling an orange and orange insulting? Its a statement of fact, nothing more.

It’s funny that the same people trying to separate the actions of a large group of people from a religion when it comes to the factual tenants of Islam, try to associate the actions of a small group of individuals, going against the factual tenants of Christianity, to an entire religion when it comes to Christianity.

I’m not sure what your last question was about.

What the gentleman said made a great deal of sense.

I seriously disagree with his spin when he ‘described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces”’.

But I’m totally with him on: " jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,"

Even if you don’t beleive a word of it, I have difficulty understanding why you’d want homeland security to spin it otherwise. Saying ‘We beleive all people of Terrorist-descent are in fact jihadis and we are hereby declaring war on them’ would be exciting… but thoroughly foolish. America is not at war with Islam. That can’t be what the more… ‘conservative’… members of the board would be pushing for, can it?

Saying ‘We beleive all people of Terrorist-descent are in fact jihadis and we are hereby declaring war on them’ would be exciting… but thoroughly foolish. America is not at war with Islam. …

Islam is at war with America.

Here’s the heart of the issue:

Yes, like or not, agree with it or not, want it or not, Jihad is a tenet of Islam - it has been a fundamental component of Islam since the 7th century - it is how Islam spread over the world - convert(become muslim), submit (become dhimmi) or die (become infidel).

the problem it that he called it LEGITIMATE - adding the gravitas and recognition of our government that JIHAD is worthy of consideration and respect by a Western nation - the same nation that Jihad seeks to conquer or destroy.

[quote]Otep wrote:
I seriously disagree with his spin when he ‘described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces”’.

[/quote]

If I lived in the middle of the fucking sandbox, with no oppurtunities, and all the women dressed up like ninja’s I’d probably strap a fucking bomb to my chest too.

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
I seriously disagree with his spin when he ‘described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces”’.

[/quote]

If I lived in the middle of the fucking sandbox, with no oppurtunities, and all the women dressed up like ninja’s I’d probably strap a fucking bomb to my chest too.[/quote]

Ditto! maybe it’s just my syrian half, but we never get to see some of the most beautiful women in the world - sad sad thing . . .

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
I seriously disagree with his spin when he ‘described violent extremists as victims of “political, economic and social forces”’.

[/quote]

If I lived in the middle of the fucking sandbox, with no oppurtunities, and all the women dressed up like ninja’s I’d probably strap a fucking bomb to my chest too.[/quote]

Ditto! maybe it’s just my syrian half, but we never get to see some of the most beautiful women in the world - sad sad thing . . .[/quote]

I guess you can go strap one on and then you get 1,000,000 of those ladies and as virgins. I wonder in the afterlife if the virgins still have to dress like Ninjas?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Here’s the heart of the issue:

Yes, like or not, agree with it or not, want it or not, Jihad is a tenet of Islam - it has been a fundamental component of Islam since the 7th century - it is how Islam spread over the world - convert(become muslim), submit (become dhimmi) or die (become infidel).

the problem it that he called it LEGITIMATE - adding the gravitas and recognition of our government that JIHAD is worthy of consideration and respect by a Western nation - the same nation that Jihad seeks to conquer or destroy.[/quote]

So far that Jihad is seen as a battle of a spiritual nature- did you read the article?

edit: So far AS that Jihad is seen as a battle of a spiritual nature- did you read the article?

Good catch. LOL.