Thread by @Cobretata

Clearly we need to revive the Obama administration's campaign against Generic Violent Extremism, which Democrats insisted was the note-perfect response to a wave of Islamist terrorism.

It was considered VERY important under Obama not to single out any particular group of extremists or imply that any particular ideology was prone to violence. All "violent extremism" was to be equally condemned. No brand of extremism was to be treated as worse than others.

The Obama administration said it was VERY important to avoid drawing any links between "violent extremists" and legitimate groups that shared some of their beliefs. Only sworn members of designated extremist organizations were to be treated as a threat.

The Obama administration said violent extremists were tiny minorities who attempt to hijack larger movements and twist legitimate grievances into recruiting tools. The important goal was to reach out with compassion and understanding to those at risk of being recruited.

The legitimate grievances of the vulnerable had to be understood and addressed. We had to understand why they felt so alienated from our society. What could we do better to prevent them from feeling this way? We had to accept our role in making them vulnerable to radicalization.

We were also instructed by the Obama administration that underlying economic factors were the true cause of radicalization. Joblessness was a major cause of jihadism. Popular culture had to become more inclusive so youths would see that we respect and value THEIR culture.

Above all, the crusade against Generic Violent Extremism said it was important to firewall legitimate political and religious organizations - even if they spoke out against American values and we strongly disagreed with them! - from allegations of violent extremism.

We were told that if we treated such legitimate dissenting organizations as if they were fronts for terrorism, it would become easier for actual terrorists to recruit the alienated and desperate. We had to draw a VERY clear and sharp line between fundamentalism and extremism.

In fact, we were told by the Obama administration it was important for American politicians and officials to embrace the ideologies that seemed prone to violent extremism, hire their representatives as advisers and lecturers, publicly salute the beauty of their beliefs.

This way, the siren song of violent extremist recruiters could be countered. We'd teach our public officials not to say or do the things they harped on to attract recruits. We'd show the people vulnerable to extremist recruiters EXACTLY where the "wrong side of history" is.

It was considered extremely important to refer to terrorist recruits as "lone wolves" with no firm connection to larger movements. No one but the killer himself was responsible for his deeds. Even if he declared loyalty to a larger movement, he was still a "lone wolf."

How about it, Democrats? Ready to bring back the Obama campaign against Generic Violent Extremism you hailed as a work of compassionate genius when Islamists were fielding armies, conquering territory, building billion-dollar treasuries, and attracting recruits in the West? /end