Romney tags jihadists as enemy, marking shift from Obama, Bush

You cant fight an enemy you cannot name or identify.

“We can’t kill our way out of this mess … (yes we can)

The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world,” Romney said.

For every 'leader' we kill there will be 10 others who will kill and die for the cult.

I have a huge problem with "help the Muslim world".

We should do no such thing.

Many Muslims believe jihad to be an inner spiritual struggle...

And just exactly what does that consist of? And what is the goal? Has anyone ever achieved this goal? By doing what?
They already pray five times a day, and ideally, Allah is always on their mind, so what more can be done that is not haram? Whenever a Mahoundian feels an inner struggle coming on, they should read the Quran, it does not matter what, just open it and start reading...the desire for inner struggle will fade...

"Romney tags jihadists as enemy, marking shift from Obama, Bush,"

While it is a shift away from Obama, it doesn't sound like a shift away from Bush at all. Romney's description sounds pretty much exactly like Bush's Doctrine of the TMOE (Tiny Minority of Extremists):

“We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism,” Romney said, highlighting the link between Islam and terrorism.

Notice the reporter's exegesis there. There was nothing in Romney's words other than one word -- "jihadist" -- that only implied a link between Islam and terrorism; it certainly did not "highlight" it. If it had, he wouldn't be grandly proclaiming that we must "help Islam" and "help the Muslim world". That link between terrorism and Islam needs to be brought out into the light and explained by our political representatives and mainstream news media -- that should be their job. Romney is not only not doing his job in explaining it, he's actually obfuscating it by incoherently connecting it to "helping Islam" and "helping the Muslim world".

The reporter goes on to quote Romney basically iterating, again, the Bush Doctrine of the TMOE:

The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world,” Romney said.

While this is far better than Obama, let's stop kidding ourselves and stop leaping for the crumbs that fall from the table of the PC MCs (and Romney is a solid PC MC about Islam; while Obama is a radical Leftist, at best).

I.e., Romney's willingness to use the one word "jihadist" (while immediately contextualizing it in order to save all of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims from the condemnation of that one word) represents basically One Step Forward from the One Step Back Obama took from the One Step Forward Two Steps Back Bush took -- landing Romney not on the progressive position we should be at by now, over 10 years after 911 and countless other atrocities by Muslims, but simply back to where Bush was 4 years ago.

If a candidate for President is going to proclaim that we have to "help Islam" and "help the Muslim world" and that this "help" is going to take on the dimensions of a "very comprehensive and robust strategy" -- this is a potent recipe for more Bushish neo-Wilsonianism that has resulted in our wasting trillions of dollars in the grandiose failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch have condemned every which way but loose for years.

In the tragicomic real world we must continue to endure, we have to leap for joy at the choice of a solid Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist over against a radical Leftist Marxist revolutionary with deep affinities for Islam that go far beyond what a PC MC is capable of -- and this is supposed to represent "progress" for us! I suppose it is progress, in the sense that landing in a pile of shit and breaking both your legs is progress, when at least you had saved yourself by jumping out of a burning building where you would have died from the fire.

Romney tags jihadists as enemy, marking shift from Obama, Bush

A small bit of realism in last night's debate, cutting through years of fantasy-based policymaking.
..............................

Well, the whole "helping the Muslim world" thing is still pretty fantasy-based, but there is no doubt that this is a significant improvement over babbling about "Al Qaida", or—worse yet—claiming that the "War on Terror" is over.

At least Romney's using the "J-word" means that he is acknowledging that Jihad *is* about Islam—although, no doubt, just "Islamic extremism" as he sees it.

I have no illusions about Mitt Romney being any sort of modern-day Winston Churchill. But he openly supports Israel, and is much less likely to fawn over the Muslim Brotherhood than the current occupant of the White Hose.

Really, I imagine Romney will pursue the same sort of muddled, inconsistent "strategy" that George Bush did—hopefully without the two doomed "nation-building" wars.

It's a sad situation where this is still a vast improvement over the status quo—but that's where we are.

My vote isn't going to count for much in bluer-than-blue California. I hope enough people in the swing states cast their votes for Romney, though.

Nobama 2012!

LL:

I suppose it is progress, in the sense that landing in a pile of shit and breaking both your legs is progress, when at least you had saved yourself by jumping out of a burning building where you would have died from the fire.

LOL. Brilliant. That pretty much says it all right there.

Romney is no Einstein, but he’s not stupid either, at least in terms of his rhetoric. He wants to be the President above all else. If he deliberately injected this word, then he knows what the real deal is. The only question then is, why won’t he and others like him come out and tell the full truth, and do what needs to be done.

Because they fear Leftists will tar them as ‘extremists who hate anything brown-skinned and foreign.’ And low-information voters will buy it, and it will build general, irrational anti-Romney ‘momentum.’

This is why we really need to be cutting some corners. I hate to say it, but we’re never going to win this war by waiting for the organic US political consciousness to arrive at our determination. That just isn’t going to happen, ever. There are too many lazy dummies, and more being bred every second. We have to take control of this thing. In short, we have to cheat.

I know that there are people in the military that understand this, and I suspect that Romney may have been sending a signal to them. But it still isn’t anything close to enough.

Below are two statements that I composed and separately emailed directly to the Romney campaign yesterday a short while before the final debate began:

1) I realize that it might be political suicide for a politician before an election to publicly discuss the threat of Islamic infiltration into the fabric of this nation; but if you are elected, you must continue to diligently study and seriously ponder what people like Bill Warner (www.politicalislam.com) and Robert Spencer (www.jihadwatch.org) and many others are eloquently explaining to the world at this time. Islamic infiltration is an imminent threat, among many other threats, with which our nation's leaders must decisively and promptly deal. Failure to sharply deal with this threat will result in the annihilation of our society as we know it. I am a realist, not an alarmist.

2) Israel is so concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons capability solely because of Islam's ideology which demands that Israel be annihilated; and Iran will, therefore, use any means to accomplish that annihilation. I have not heard this point discussed publicly by American politicians, but it must be discussed. Islam's perverse annihilation ideology is the issue about which politicians are apparently afraid to talk publicly.

For one brief shinning moment Bush in a foreign policy speech used the term "Islamo-fascists." Then he got hammered for it and he never spoke it again.

Oh, and I should add Mitt, if you’re reading this, that Muslims don’t consider Mormons ‘People of the Book.’ Any offshoot of Christianity after Muhammad’s time doesn’t get that designation. In other words, you don’t get the ‘luxury’ of the dhimmi offer. You get the option of convert to Islam or die.

Is a Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) Muslim a jihadist, even if they have not yet personally engaged in observable physical acts like yelling out the war cry of "Allahu Akbar" to strike terror into the hearts of non-Muslims within earshot?

As a reminder, a happy Frenchman who cooks great food can still be deported for overstaying a VISA. They need not do anything remotely threatening as a predicate to tossing them out. Muslims are by their own definition not loyal US citizens because they pledge superior loyalty to the Islamic Ummah, a worldwide nation. They are no less non-citizens than a Frenchman, and certainly far less committed to defending the cause of freedom. Indeed they are at best neutral, provided that they are non-pious and harbor private dreams of apostasy. In which case they are not really Muslims anyway (or jihadists), they would be closet apostates. Let them come out publicly as an apostate at a minimum to being recognized as a citizen of the US.

Diluted liberty is like tossing a rotten apple into a box of good apples and calling it diversity or multicultural nirvana. Freedom is not a race, nor is being an enemy of freedom. Choose freedom, and defend it.

If a Muslim sits on your local school board what will be your first thought? Loyalty? It will displace all other considerations, as it should. SIC Muslims see their Muslim titles as titles of supremacist nobility and thus should be prohibited from serving any public office.

Will Romney get it. No. Everybody will get confused by the word religion -- as if to be French is a religion, a great religion for which one must not discriminate, within the US. One need not apply the label of evil or enemy or terrorist or even jihadist to a SIC Muslim who has labeled himself or herself a non-citizen by their own choice and to immediately expel them.

Unfortunately, even with Romney, we have a lot of work to do to educate him and his team regarding the nature of not just the "jihadist" threat, but the Islamic threat.

Don't forget just a few months ago Romney was recorded saying that "Jihadism is no part of Islam." Few statements are more ignorant. There is a good chance that Romney will be every bit as much Mr. Milquetoast and ignorant on Islam as Bush was - but at least he won't be quite the promoter as obama is.

Must watch video regarding Iran ...

THE RED LINE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJAKOfxl_VU&feature=player_embedded

I thought that Romney would come through.

He's not big on dramatics and fanfare, but he does the right thing in the end.

I think he'll do the right thing on this subject. It seems that he's gotten started already.

First you have to identify who's fighting against you.

I think he's enlisting the right advisers, and he'll get an accurate understanding.

This is a seemingly small, but hugely significant step in the right direction.

In his infamous "47%" speech he can also be heard saying "We know that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in peace" (sorry if not quite verbatim). This leads me to hope that Romney might quite exceed my (low) expectations for him and of course be hugely better than the present creature.

By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, despite their engaging in stealth jihad here is the US and in 'The Project" discovered by Swiss authorities for world domination, Obama has shown he has done just the opposite of what Romney has recommended. Romney missed a good opportunity by failing to mention that during the last debate.

Calling our enemy jihadists may or may not show signs of progress. It depends on what Romney means by the term.

Well, we already know, because he told us back in June of 2009:

...three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/03/mitt-romney-jihadism-is-not-part-of-islam

Also, back in 2011, Romney spoke at a public q & a:

Romney said radical, violent Islamists pose a threat to Americans and others around the world. However, he said, “they take a very different view of Islam than the Muslims I know.” He noted that he was raised in the Detroit area, which has a large Muslim population. “They are peace-loving and America-loving individuals. I believe that very sincerely. I believe people of the Islamic faith do not have to subscribe to the idea of radical, violent jihadism.”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/romney-i-believe-people-of-the-islamic-faith-do-not-have-to-subscribe-to-the-idea-of-radical-violent.html

Gag.