“We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed, to tear up the entire world.”
A good sign that he has not, as has been widely suspected, turned against the principles that got him elected. Will he now allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to study the motivating ideology of the jihad threat?
Also positive: Trump’s denunciation of the Iran nuclear deal, “an embarrassment to the United States.”
John W says
I’m sure Imam McMaster was upset about that part of the speech.
Jake says
I’m still pissed at him for the attack on the nonreligious he did earlier.
PRCS says
No Muslim on the planet follows or practices “radical” Islam, as there’s no such thing.
They practice Islam.
I do hope that at some point–soon–our leaders will have the courage to just tell the truth.
Do they really believe our Muslim allies are “the good Muslims” and that so-called extremists are “perverting the faith”?
I know what DJT says about Islam is a vast improvement over BHO’s nonsense, but c’mon–can anyone on his staff explain the difference between “radical Islamic terrorism” and the regular version?
rubiconcrest says
In one sense it can be argued that it is proper to say ‘radical islamic terror’. Islam is radical, period. The day that people the world over come to that logical conclusion is coming.
Jake says
Alternatively, terror is usually radical and Islamic terror is no exception, so it’s radical in general, not for Islam.
PRCS says
Islam is NOT a “radical” ideology.
It’s just another ideology.
One that needs to be addressed–logically–and factually.
blitz2b says
PRC says “…Islam is NOT a “radical” ideology.
It’s just another ideology.
One that needs to be addressed–logically–and factually….”
Good luck with that idea… Try telling a Muslim that the word of Almighty Allah has to new reformed to adapt to the modern era and he will hand you your head on a shiny platter…
The death of Islam WILL BE it’s inability to be reformed for nook human being can uphold an ideology that segregates humanity into either their gender or religious preferences, and Islam vehemently preaches and practices both.
PRCS says
“One that needs to be addressed–logically–and factually”
We need to do that and stop accepting the excuses, obfuscations and lies about Islam’s teachings from them and their useful idiots.
I know Islam won’t be reformed. You know that. They know that.
Now, let’s make that clear to our fellow “unbelievers”.
Terry Gain says
Rome wasn’t built in a day. We will deal address Islam once radical Islam is no longer a force.
This was an excellent speech which took on not just the Islamists but the Globalists, Communists and Socialists. And I like how he made the case for sovereignty and against the rogue governments of Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela.
PRCS says
There is no such thing as “radical” Islam.
There is Islam, and our “leaders” have had plenty of time to ease their way into telling the truth about it.
Richie says
there is indeed radical Islam- Muslims who live peaceful lives and reject the Koran’s violent teachings. Peace in Islam is a radical departure from what the religion preaches
PRCS says
You are confusing the ideology–a written ideology–with the degree to which individual Muslim comply.
There are “moderate” Muslims.
There is no “radical” Islam.
Peace, in Islam, is when Muslims are free to practice their “faith” without restrictions–everywhere–and all religion is for Allah.
Demsci says
Or, “radical” Islam is the radically best (in the sense of understood and performer) practiced form of Islam?
Given what Islam in total is, describing it as best we can?
Quran-Hadiths-Sira,
and those explained by a number of Tafsirs (Al Tabari, Ibn Qathir, al Jalalayn etc)
and later still explained by the schools of thought (Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki) and numerous Islamic Scholars, leaders, apologists?
And then that packet in total? So with the parts we are abhorred by, object to
But also with some rather mundane, tolerable tenets, such as Ramadan, Zakat, Praying 5 times a day, Hajj, clothing, hairstyle if it is freely chosen.
I don’t know; perhaps we can say; we defend ourselves and our own tolerant democratic ideology against the “supremacist, violent, anti-democratic tenets (and rolemodels) inside Islamic Ideology.
Because saying that we are against all Islam is, rightly, interpreted as if we are against all Muslims that practice their religion correctly. But that in turn almost always gets interpreted as “painting all Muslims with the same bad brush”, and discriminating on grounds of religion. And that is objected to by our own majority, by our own laws even.
PRCS says
Demsci,
Too many of our friends and neighbors make the mistake of confusing Islam–the ideology–with Muslims. Not all Muslims have fully submitted, of course. Not all are fully compliant with Islam’s texts. But their failure to do so does not negate in the slightest what it teaches, commands, and expects of them.
Yes. we must defend ourselves from those Muslims who–per Islam’s texts–attempt to impose those aspects of Islamic law which are antithetical to the very meaning of democracy and which run afoul of man made constitutions and laws upon the rest of us by clearly, precisely, and publicly delineate those specific tenets of their faith and to no longer accept excuses, obfuscations and lies about them.
And that old line that Muslims are compelled by “their faith” to comply with the laws of the lands in which they live is simply not enough. Our Muslims, at least, need to be challenged to either defend or reject Islam’s religious punishments–everywhere
My two cents.
Demsci says
Spot on PRCS! To a large extent I agree with all you say here.
Oh, indeed; “our compatriots to a very large extent do not understand this distinction between Islam and Muslims” as you explain. A great pity, as Islam’s texts work against our own Tolerant Democratic Ideology and societal system, through Muslims. But still we can’t hold Muslims in our countries accountable for this hostile ideology, due to anti-discrimination attitudes and laws.
“Islam is the ideology, not radical Islam”. I concede the point, but for 90 %, in the sense that both Muslims and Political Corrects often opine that there are multiple interpretations of parts of the whole package of Islam. And: If the Tafsirs and Scholars are rejected as authoritave and EXCLUDED it becomes possible for Muslims to regard conduct of Mohammed and early Caliphs and Muslims as DESCRIPTIVE instead of PRESCRIPTIVE and abrogation of MECCAN verses can then be denied. Hence; there then IS choice for Muslims.
But this subtle approach is not even accepted by most Muslims themselves; too complicated, and it involves admitting Islam is unclear, which they will never admit. Political Corrects do in practice maintain Islam is unclear and therefore multi-interpretable, but they (in)tend to make Islam look like any other religion by that strategem.
So your approach seems the only really logical one left.
And the Muslims way out should primarily be that they can if they want, practice the Intolerant Islam as much as they desire in Islamic countries, but not in Democratic countries.
We can respect a difference in societal system between nations, but not this hostile anti-democratic law and attitude of Muslims in our own Tolerant Democratic Nations.
SV says
The US UN ambassador is also very critical of the Iran Deal, as evidenced by her recent talk at AEI.
eduardo odraude says
McMaster, too, recently said the Iran deal was terrible.
I’ve been saying for the last few weeks that I did not believe Trump had changed on this issue. I think he knows with clarity that Islam is not a religion of peace and is not compatible with liberal democracy. His apparent shifts in recent weeks did not really indicate any abandonment of those views, but only shifts in the tactics and strategy of talking about the issue as president.
Carolyne says
Thank you Eduardo. I agree with you. Last week the President was being criticized because he did not mention Islam by name. This week he is being criticized because he did, by those same people. As I said last week, the President knows much more about the situation than any of us do. IMO he acts accordingly. He can do without the Monday morning quarterbacks who are joining the chorus of criticizing his every move–some of them not on the left. Their goal is to destroy him and everyone around him. This only adds to their their endeavors.
PRCS says
He didn’t mention Islam, by name.
He used a nonsensical euphemism which whitewashes written, Orthodox Islam’s ugly teachings.
“Radical Islamic terrorism”.
When he and his staff finally do just say Islam, without the qualifiers, that will be a great day.
ahem says
Well, if you posit it as ‘radical’ Islam, then you give non-fundamentalist Muslims that want no war with the West a respectable position to hold without having to forsake their religion—that’s one strong reason to continue the myth of ‘radical’ Islam. They would no more abandon their religion by force than we would. We have nothing to gain by conflating them with fundamentalist.
You can’t prevail over an adversary without permitting them get away with some of their dignity. If the French hadn’t insisted on punishing the Germans so harshly after WWI, there’s a great chance we would not have had WWII, which resulted from 20 years of festering German anger.
PRCS says
Our Saudi pals are Salafist fundamentalists.
The time for honesty about Islam’s actual teachings is long overdue.
“Moderate” Muslims have been coddled by those who parrot the “radical” Islam myth for too long.
Time for some tough love.
ahem says
You must have difficulties with reading comprehension.
PRCS says
Oh, my. What did I get wrong?
Wellington says
Yes, ahem, what exactly did PRCS get wrong?
And on the matter of “festering German anger” about the Versailles Treaty of 1919, how exactly did this justify the Germans seeking another war and giving rise to Hitler? The Versailles Treaty left Bismarckian Germany, Second Reich Germany, essentially in tact, and the Americans ended up lending more to Weimar Germany than Weimar had to pay out to countries like France and Belgium (surely you know at least this——or do you?).
And, as that great English historian, Paul Johnson, rhetorically asked in his masterpiece, Modern Times, if Versailles so crucified Germany then how do you explain its economic comeback, enormously so, within just twenty years of Versailles? Yeah, explain this if you will.
Try providing arguments next time instead of excuses masquerading as arguments. Yeah, give it a shot. And may I suggest you don’t begin from that bogus starting point of “festering German anger.” Gustav Stresemann, great statesman that he was, never used this excuse. But Hitler did. So have you.
Demsci says
I admit the huge difficulty of finally declaring essential tenets of Islam (total package) being demonstrably in contradiction with and detrimental for our own Tolerant Democratic Ideology and societal system.
And moreover to hold “our” Muslims accountable for this at least in part hostile ideology which they hold in common with clearly supremacist leaders and masses in a dictatorial Islamic Ummah.
But the difficulty lies more in coming to a democratic way, through a democratic majority, to laws which protect our own ideology and system through, in effect: ….
discrimination on grounds of religion! Not radically, but mildly and precise, like Muslim bans, and based upon hostility to our ideology and system and friendships to enemies of them by incoming and resident and Muslims.
We may well add that we completely understand that Islamic countries do in effect the reverse. Which they indeed already do! So why can’t the tolerant Democratic Nations do the same as the Intolerant Islamic ones? It is simply a matter of reciprocity between Nations with diametrically opposed ideologies.
Demsci says
Incoming and resident Muslims.
PRCS says
Thank you for both of your two most recent posts.
Yes, mildly when appropriate. More aggressive if needed.
But precise.
Walter Sieruk says
President Trump had spoken well when he declared ” We must stop radical Islamic terrorism.” President Trump use the term “Islamic terrorism ” as he should, unlike that last US President. For it’s very important to be clear and call things as they actually are .Which is keeping withing the grounds of reality. For example, calling a Marxist terrorist “a Communist terrorist” is saying thins as they really are . Likewise calling a Islamic terrorist an “Islamic terrorist” is a very fitting uses of words . Let’s go even further and use the term “Muslim terrorist ” when its appropriate .
Second, the Muslim terrorist attacks in Western nations be the Muslim/jihadist in the cities of New, York ,New York Washington DC, Boston London,Manchester, Stockholm ,Brussels , Paris, Nice, Berlin ,Madrid. Those jihad-minded Muslim terrorists who engage in those vicious Islamic terror attacks cannot be and will not be reasoned with. They will not respond to either logic or reason. They aren’t interested, at all, in reason or logic. So they have to be dealt with by a strong force of might. Either by the police or the military. For to even try to reason with a jihad-minded Muslim terrorist is just as much an act of futility as trying to teach algebra to a rabbit.
PRCS says
Please explain how “radical” Islam differs from the Islam of Qur’an and Sunnah.
Walter Sieruk says
Actually all Islam is dangerous regardless if it’s called “radical” or not. It’s only a matter of degree of how dangerous.
PRCS says
Muslim’s are not practicing “radical” Islam by complying with that ideology.
They’re practicing Islam.
It’s the degree to which individual Muslims comply with that ideology that makes it dangerous.
Peacemaker says
Hopefully, Trump will destroy all evil Islam in near future.
Infidel says
Mad Musa terrorist in Kashmir threatens Hindus with total annihilation….
http://www.republicworld.com/s/7633/zakir-musa-threatens-india-against-deportation-of-rohingyas
Walter Sieruk says
We should all be glad that President Trump stated things clear and well when he declared “We will stop radical Islamic terrorism.”
Furthermore, It’s a strange but common phenomena in the USA and Europe with this absurd modern PC culture that when it comes to Islamic terrorism there are many people who are afraid to call it what it is. That’s odd because no one is afraid to call a person who engages in violence for anarchy and “anarchist terrorist”. Nor are people afraid to call a Marxist who engages in violence for the ideology of communism a “Communist terrorist.” Likewise, a person who commits violence for Environmentalism an “Environmentalist terrorists. “Nevertheless, when it comes to a Muslim terrorist who engages in deadly violence because of the theology and ideology of Islam, many people fear to call that person an “Islamic terrorists.” Strange but true.
PRCS says
So, they should say “Muslim terrorists” and end the PC pap.
Guest says
In your McMaster! In your face!!
steve says
Trump HAS to stop Islamic atrocities. In England our children are now targeted. British politicians and police are toothless incompetents . England goes quietly and compliantly into the Islamic night.
Voytek Gagalka says
I wonder how McMaster felt hearing this statement and could contain himself without any grimace or open outcry. Maybe, just MAYBE, President Trump is more independent than I ever have had suspected him to be?
PRCS says
“A good sign that he has not, as has been widely suspected, turned against the principles that got him elected. Will he now allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to study the motivating ideology of the jihad threat?”
Which is Islam. Not “radical” Islam.
Ren says
Trump rules rule… for the better!
Lydia says
The only ‘radical’ ‘extremist’ (exceptional) islam is the peaceful variety, so removed from the norm!
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
So now, Trump, you need to override Tillerson and ban the Ikwan. Just do it. Then everything else will be easier.
John A. Marre says
Good. I’m glad he’s saying it again. Liberal heads explode when he says it. Obama never said it. Hillary never said it.
Carolyne says
Obama said, at the UN, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
I am satisfied with what President Trump said and applaud him for it. Perhaps WE have a future.
Wellington says
President Trump denouncing “radical Islamic terrorism” is the first step (which is necessary). The second step (which is necessary) is to denounce “Islamic terrorism.” The third step (which is also and keenly necessary) is to denounce “Islam.”
I look forward to the day (which had better come) when all of Islam is denounced, rather as all of Nazism and Marxism should be. After all, it is so very richly deserved. Those averring otherwise are manifesting either 1) ignorance; or 2) mendacity. And who of sense and knowledge should ever, would ever, rely upon the uninformed or liars?
RCCA says
I think there are a lot of people who don’t know the actual meaning of the word “radical.”(from OED) The word radical means: 1. of the root. 2. naturally inherent, essential, fundamental. 3. forming the basis. 4. affecting the foundation, going to the root, seeking to ensure removal of all diseased tissue.
Politicians have twisted the meaning of the word radical to refer to “extremists who commit violence” in order to placate those who do not wish to offend Muslims, to differentiate between normal people and violent extremists. But if you really think about the meaning, saying “radical Islamic terrorism” is an accurate description. As everyone here keeps saying, at its root Islam advocates dishonesty, subjugation and violent terrorism to advance its agenda. So I have no problem with the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.” I don’t have to split hairs and insist that everyone know why that is an accurate statement.
Wellington says
I respectfully disagree, RCCA. Here’s why in a nutshell: The terms “radical Islam” and “radical Islamic terrorism” are redundant. Just look at the four meanings you provided for the word, “radical.” Rather proves my case I would argue since Islam, ALL OF IT, is steeped in “of the root,” “fundamental,” “forming the basis” and “affecting the foundation.”
I’m not a big fan of redundancy. And such a term as “radical Islam” is not only redundant (itself objectionable) but it implicitly gives cover to Islam by way of that massive distinction without a difference, i.e., that “radical Islam” is somehow different from “Islam.”
Obfuscation of evil is not a good thing and so I would ask you to reconsider matters here. I write this in a spirit of friendship——and honesty.
RCCA says
This is the whole point, that we must admit that there are multitudes of Muslims who do not actually know their own religion, (not to mention those on the political Left.) You could call them “cultural Muslims.” It’s not our responsibility to educate them about the fundamental roots of Islam but rather to shine a light on the fact that there is such a thing as the root, the fundamental truths of Islam. Yes, I agree for someone who knows this material the phrase “radical Islam” is redundant, but that is a relatively small group of people in the West. Furthermore, as I’ve said before, we have a vested interest in supporting and advancing those Muslims who are attempting to reform Islam and discard the root violence. I don’t want to rehash the argument about whether that is possible, etc., especially when there are people who are risking their lives to do so. I agree we must be vigilant in separating the true reformers from the apologist and dissemblers. But if we don’t do it, who will?
Wellington says
Thank you for your reply. Well, if you have to rely upon people who don’t really know the ideology they adhere to, how much of a winning strategy is that? Don’t you see that a mass exodus from Islam is the optimal approach, actually the only approach?
Islam is unreformable, just as Nazism and Marxism are. Proceeding from this point is the realistic one. Proceeding from the assumption that Islam can be reformed is a route to Nowheresville. It is a fool’s errand of the highest dimension. After all, can’t reform rot.
Demsci says
Such an interesting conversation. I am in favor of hoping for mass Exodus out of Islam as Wellington says. And I concur that it is a bad strategy to rely on people who know and practice their own religion “substandard”.
But then my hope is for the positive strategy of formulating and presenting and adhering to a SECOND Ideology, our own, that is better than Islamic Ideology. Also for Muslims themselves.
Which would give people the possibility to regard Islam as an immoral and stupid HINDRANCE, Nuisance for that better ideology. And it would make Muslims worried about this competitor to Islam for hearts and minds, same way as we now are worried about Islam.
This does not seem to have much traction, and it seems farfetched. But …. the choices for religion and ideology by masses of people did change numerous times in history. Even Islam was once new and then replaced previous faiths en masse. it can happen again.
Richie says
His speech writers did a good job- but Trump has gone back on many campaign promises. This was a good speech, but that’s all it was
Wellington says
Very likely true, all you have averred, Richie, but consider the alternative, i.e., Hillary Clinton as President.
As always, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Trump has done many good things since January, examples being the opening of the Keystone Pipeline, getting the hell out of that racket of rackets, the Paris Climate Accord, requiring through executive order that at least five governmental regulations be done away with for each new one, building up the military after Obama took it to a pre-WWII level, going after the monstrosity which is ObamaCare which the pathetic Republican dominated Congress has passed the buck on, and accurately describing what happened in the Charlottesville incident, i.e. that there were good people on both sides and bad people on both sides (and denouncing by name far-right extremists like the KKK and Neo-Nazis which Obama NEVER did with far-left extremists like Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party).
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from. I too want Trump to have done even more than he has done to date, but impatience is the enemy of progress in the right direction and Trump, with all his faults, with all his now unimpressive advisers (e.g., McMaster), is still not only America’s best hope but all of the West’s as well.
Do I wish America could right now have another Lincoln as President? You bet I do. But Trump is all we who prize liberty have right now and he often stumbles into the truth, as he did back in March of 2016 when he said (so accurately I might add), “I think Islam hates us.” By contrast, the former President never stumbled into the truth. Indeed, he placed the truth in an obscure corner and left it there and then went on and on and on about seeming truths which were only lies (examples being his fawning speech back in June of 2009 in Cairo respecting how wonderful and tolerant Islam has been and his regularly bringing up the Ferguson, Missouri incident as evidence of racial bias in America, even after Officer Wilson was exonerated by a bi-racial jury for killing that young thug, Michael Brown {and who never put his hands up}).
So, Trump is the best the West has going for it right now. He, because of his position, remains the most powerful person in the world for the preservation of liberty. And this is why, even when noting his faults, I continue to back him. Do you or anyone have a realistic choice to the contrary? I know of none. Yeah, none. Do you?
So, civilization is hanging by a thread. But so many times this has been the case. It certainly is right now.
Carolyne says
Wellington, I agree with all you said except possibly where you seemed to say he hadn’t done enough in the time he has had. I believe that in the time he has had in the Oval Office, his accomplishments on our behalf have been outstanding. And he has accomplished these things with both parties fighting him at every opportunity.. It has been only eight months. I am looking forward to the next eight.
Kessler says
Great speech, but why on earth is he having a go at Assad?!? He is not the enemy of Syria, and at no point has there been conclusive evidence of him ordering a chemical attack on his own people. He is parroting Obama who was seeking to remove Assad in order to usher in Sharia law (which is what the “rebels” are striving for).
Trump is on the right track on many point, be he needs to align himself with those who are actively fighting the Jihadists – that includes Russia and Assad.
I’m truly perplexed whenever people call for Assad’s departure – what exactly will preceed him – who will take his place? Someone who continues Assad’s vision of pluralism and protection of religious minorities? Of course not – the only alternative to Assad is Sharia fascism….so Trump – stop demonizing the enemy of your enemy. Even if they suck up to Iran
Demsci says
In terms of geopolitics I see your point. Although there is the alliance with Iran, and by now in that alliance Assad must be almost a totally depending and subservient vassal. And Iran is very much the enemy, may be even our prime enemy.
But no, I don’t see any good alternative for him either. And no, I don;t really see Russia as our prime enemy any more.
Also; is n’t it important to use same standards for all parties? And not double standards, like attacking ISIS but giving Assad a pass on same sort of atrocities? Giving the Islamic enemies the “ammunition ” to accuse the West of Using double standards? Which they do all the time.
kessler says
Where is the conclusive, impartial evidence that Assad carried out those atrocities, ie the chemical attack on his own people? The double standard seem to be created by people who want to see the rebels (islamists) take power
Chand says
Demsci says: “And Iran is very much the enemy, may be even our prime enemy.”
Sorry to disagree. I think the Sunni extremists are proving to be more vicious and evil today, including the hateful Wahabbi ideology from S. Arabia.
Chand says
agreed, Kessler.
PRCS says
“I think there are a lot of people who don’t know the actual meaning of the word “radical.”(from OED) The word radical means: 1. of the root. 2. naturally inherent, essential, fundamental. 3. forming the basis. 4. affecting the foundation, going to the root, seeking to ensure removal of all diseased tissue.”
That has been noted here numerous times, though not everyone has noted it.
“Politicians have twisted the meaning of the word radical to refer to “extremists who commit violence” in order to placate those who do not wish to offend Muslims, to differentiate between normal people and violent extremists”
That this definition is also valid “very different from the usual or traditional :extreme” is, IMO, why so many politicians, “journalists”, the average joe, etc., interpret and use the term “radical Islam” to mean “a perversion of the faith”.
That in mind, I submit that the word has not been twisted in the minds of most.
And such confusion is a great reason to just call it Islam.
gravenimage says
Trump at UN: “We will stop radical Islamic terrorism”
………………….
I was heartened to hear this.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I was very disappointed by his speech. I would have preferred that he say, “The gravy trains over folks. You have until Friday to pack up and leave the country.”
More Ham Ed says
Hannity interviews Egyptian President El-Sisi (starts at the 31 minute mark).
Sure, he says the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.
BUT DON’T FORGET, MAKE SURE TO NOT “TARNISH” ISLAM!
31768 deadly documented islamic terror attacks since 9/11.
“Sharoon Masih, the Christian teen beaten to death by Muslim classmates after drinking water from the same cooler. While Muslims in America practically fantasize about ‘hate crimes,’ the brutal reality of religious minorities in Islamic countries is simply shrugged off. “ (photo).
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW1Cv9a3cM&start=2060
Kasey says
That will also happen only when Islam refutes its lethal ideology against all non-Muslims. And that needs all the World to confront Islam over this and make its representatives confront this internal problem within Islam, recognize it exists, and become totally tolerant of all others and forsake its quest for supremacy. That means also that Islamic indoctrination of its youth and converts must change drastically.