Whose Cause Do WE Further By Saying "Islamic Terrorism"?

Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)

Does FOX exploit Kelly Ayotte for her
willingness to be the last critic standing?

"I think they should spend less time on being more politically correct about how we define our enemies and spend more time on figuring out how to defeat them", said Senator Kelly Ayotte (FOX News Sunday)
with her fresh new hair-do but old blabbering ability to be the last Senator beating a dead horse to death all over again.

To the credit of the republican party, and FOX news who blindly cosigns conservative ignorance, Ayotte has finally stopped crying Benghazi for FOX.   In its place are social media updates and Obama criticism in between social media updates.  These days, every network is a late edition of social media, but FOX maintains its unique rhythm by consistently bashing Obama.  The next Democrat president (since republicans are proving incapable of winning the oval office) will be tagged to Obama by FOX mostly because they won't be able to transition the attack in a way that will maintain ratings.

 Since FOX is the last bastion of republican sentiment 
 (nobody listens to radio anymore- sorry Rush),

How bout those gas prices, heh?

FOX embraces their self described label of being fair and balanced about as much as you hear them say it these days.  They know better than anyone how profitable Obama has been for them.  They also realize how disinterested their viewers become when they do anything other than bash Obama- so they connect him to every societal problem that they can.

The latest President Obama criticism is his unwillingness to focus on the fact that evil terror organizations terrorize in the name of Islam.  As a president, this is a really prudent policy in that so many non-radical Muslims die every day in the effort to defeat these radicals. EVERYBODY- even FOX news, agrees that the war against Islamic terror groups must be lead by a coalition of Muslim people, so how does anyone, especially a world leader, try to establish that coalition while using rhetoric that is offensive towards the people who must lead the coalition?  It's almost as though FOX, or anyone who attempts to achieve world peace through hostile rhetoric, is trying to sabotage our own interests.

And then it hit me.

John Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu are no better by political posturing during an Israeli campaign season, behind the back of the elected leader of the USA.  Neither of these men achieve their own best interest in showing a willingness to be disorderly with diplomatic relations as it brings into question America's willingness to support this ally, especially if Netanyahu wins re-election.  If Israel were to be under attack tomorrow, it would not be Boehner that decides if WE save the day.

Mitch McConnell is behaving as a grateful soul after fighting tooth and nail to survive the bid against his senatorial seat this past election season, but he was also the guy who verbalized the mission of making Obama a one term president.  His words should have been an obvious expectation of anyone in his position of opposition, but we already know that party leaders focus on winning and not losing elections, despite the self sabotaging behaviors of modern republicans.  McConnell's words oozed with revelation that even he wishes he could have kept inside.  Yet, were republicans fully invested in John McCain or any one of their brethren who would have had to oversee the worst of America's economic demise? Did Mitt Romney and his republican backers downplay the recovery to the degree that it only hurt their ability to achieve the sentiment necessary for giving the job back to a white guy?

Was Barack Obama just another brother who got the job when the job was not so desirable? Was the likelihood of his failure and the do-nothing response of congress just an intensive effort to see Obama fail even at the cost of  a more rapid recovery and the confidence of the public at-large?

Paul Ryan, the budget hawk who republicans actually follow, seems to have many things that he agrees with within the president's SOTU/budget proposals, but verbalizing your agreement can get you ran out of town like Eric Cantor. The nation was ready to fix immigration when Cantor dared to allow a vote to occur in response to the overwhelming support that polls continue to reflect to this day. Right wing extremists (can we call them terrorists?) are not into recognizing a losing fight because America is the place where the impossible is always possible- especially if you are willing to lay your life down to defend against the freedom democracy creates- like blocking popular immigration bills or enacting voter restriction laws- or sharia law.

By golly, if this nation was founded by the right people, then its up to the right to make sure this nation remains rightly pure against the influence of too many Mexican immigrants or cheating voters.  It would be nice if all of America's undesirables would either self deport or agree to never vote, but they are not going to be allowed to comfortably belong lest it be over the dead bodies of those who oppose illegal amnesty and illegal votes.  Opposition to immigration reform will eventually die in one form or another, but how long will it take before we do what we know is right for America- like insuring the right to vote?

The rise of so many forms of republicanism says that conservatives are absolutely tired of being associated with the more or less extremes of their own ideology as well.  While it might not be too extreme to call a Libertarian a republican, it is extreme to think that they will ever convert the traditional republican given that the traditional republican is just as into big government as is the liberal.  Republicans who despise America's liberal disposal of unborn babies find no fellowship in conservatives who support these practices, hence the label RINO (republican in name only) or worse.

Liberals have extremist' too, but liberal kooks are so proudly kooky that the progressive movement doesn't have to disown its own, they just have to admonish them when they burn up ski resorts.  On the right, the  Islamic terrorism label fight is sustaining an entire network who is profiting from the fear of terror connected to Islamic extremism. If you are unsure if the word Islam is as significant to the behavior as the word extreme, then you should remind yourself that American's live peacefully in the midst of Islamic people everyday, so it must be something extreme that is driving the murderous behavior and not Islam at all.

Does anyone realize what Rand Paul
would do against ISIS? Is he presidential?

As republicans wait agonizingly to remove themselves of that sympathizing liberal (Obama) who won't venomously label extremism, they are confronted with the issue of defining their party label if they are looking to define the fight against him and them. Regular and extreme conservatives seem to want some boots on the ground, while Libertarians- the hottest growing wing of the party- are not into that save the world stuff.  If WE THE PEOPLE are to give the white house back to the conservative party, will it be a regular old republican, one that drinks the Tea or Rand Paul that  will lead the charge into the white house?  Even worse, will it be some amalgamation of the various republican labels creating a figure head leader unable to coalesce the disparate missions assigned to each label?

Nobody appreciates the rise in worldwide extremism and ISIS is a nuisance that could also be called a threat.  What was once only 3,000 recruits is now 30,000 fighters with a strong economic network and an even stronger guerilla marketing system of recruiting. Even with boots on the ground, tracking down 30,000 and killing them is not as easy as it sounds, especially since their death and captivity only adds to the recruiting efforts- which is why they are begging us to bring the boots.  Adding boots on the ground seems to make sense, but only because its the only thing we know to do when provoked.  In reality, boots on the ground would open the recruiting faucet to full throttle.  Absent an opposing soldier to kill, an ISIS recruit with an M16 has only the hope of waiting for another American drone to shoot at or a defiant Muslim group that would rather keep their town instead of handing it over. Eventually, 30,000 recruited soldiers have a limited amount of space that they can sensibly secure for very long any way, so recruiting is more vital than acquisition at this time.

Obama's policy against terror removes the visual enemy that new terror recruits need to justify their own existence.  If ISIS is so dangerous, they would not use 80's style beheading's to bolster their worldwide credibility. They wouldn't need boots on the ground to benefit their recruiting.  They wouldn't be backing up in the face of Kurds and drones, and most importantly, ISIS and those like them would not need to use the rhetoric of racial division to pit all Muslims against the world at large- but they do.  Every time we allow terrorist groups to take ill-spoken words and package them into a sound bite that seems as though the world hates Muslims, we further their cause and not our own.

In the end, the manner in which we fight our enemy is only connected to the label when the label is connected to the fight. We can shoot at them no matter what we call them, but calling them by the wrong label will only empower them  to recruit someone who will shoot back.

Why give them additional bullets?