Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Dems have released an ad on some tv stations attacking Republicans for calling Islamic terrorism "radical Islam". Fortunately, I only watch FOX so I didn't have to watch/listen to this BS propaganda ad propagated by the left. That is, until now. I finally saw it here in an article though I admit I stopped watching it almost immediately when it started playing because I knew it was BS:



http://americanactionnews.com/articles/video-democrats-release-official-position-on-radical-islam



Hell, even 56% of the voters of these democratic candidates have agreed that we are indeed at war with "radical Islam" but the candidates (democratic ones) themselves refuse to acknowledge it. Guess they wanna make sure they don't upset muslims so they will win their votes. Hence, they refuse to call a spade a spade as they should. They need to get their priorities straight. They also think that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than Islamic terrorism. LOL.

Cool thread, Star

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000671139/polls_Obama_Kenya_3033_929563_answer_5_xlarge.jpeg

Is this a Christian Terrorist Robe?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000671139/polls_Obama_Kenya_3033_929563_answer_5_xlarge.jpeg

Is this a Christian Terrorist Robe?



Of course it is.

What makes them so radical?

I bet they can't even kickflip, phucking posers.

They aren't radical, just Muslim.

Let's remember who else took that stance:

https://49.media.tumblr.com/917a6fd8ba2bd8023ca4b4100d2447c3/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo8_540.gif

https://49.media.tumblr.com/0bac6e0632546f98370257c924458086/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo9_540.gif

Made less than a week after 9/11.


Overgeneralizing your opponent in order to include people who are *not* your opponent is a bad idea that helps your enemies because they use your blanket targeting as a recruiting tool.

Being mad at people for being more *specific* than you about who the enemy is is dumb and counterproductive.

And rallying about how "incredibly wrong" people in the other party are for taking a stance that your party's leadership used to openly say in recent memory, is silly and dumb.

It has been the policy of the counterterrorism officials in the State Department since 9/11 to not "dignify that movement by calling it what it calls itself. . . . Osama bin Laden himself said that the refusal of U.S. officials to join the rhetorical fight Radical Islam] made it more difficult to generate recruits."

But who cares what experts think and what cause of action is demonstrated to work?

We should do symbolic gestures to make Republicans feel good, even if they are counterproductive.

Your posts are the worst..say something half way humorous for once Q99.

Originally posted by Mindset
What makes them so radical?

I bet they can't even kickflip, phucking posers.

http://i.imgur.com/YsyTHPK.jpg

Originally posted by Q99
Let's remember who else took that stance:

https://49.media.tumblr.com/917a6fd8ba2bd8023ca4b4100d2447c3/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo8_540.gif

https://49.media.tumblr.com/0bac6e0632546f98370257c924458086/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo9_540.gif

Made less than a week after 9/11.


Overgeneralizing your opponent in order to include people who are *not* your opponent is a bad idea that helps your enemies because they use your blanket targeting as a recruiting tool.

Being mad at people for being more *specific* than you about who the enemy is is dumb and counterproductive.

And rallying about how "incredibly wrong" people in the other party are for taking a stance that your party's leadership used to openly say in recent memory, is silly and dumb.

Great post.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://i.imgur.com/YsyTHPK.jpg

Lmfao

I just noticed the best comment under the article. It was at the very top of comment section:


"Liberals: if you truly believe "climate change" is worse than terrorism, pledge right now to sell your car, downsize your home and thus "carbon footprint," and vow never to ride on a plane. If you believe that Syrians are true refugees, take them into your homes. House them, feed them, clothe them, and let them care for your children. Americans are over your glaring hypocrisy, liberals. Live your values. Put up or shut up."

Originally posted by Star428
I just noticed the best comment under the article. It was at the very top of comment section:


"Liberals: if you truly believe "climate change" is worse than terrorism, pledge right now to sell your car, downsize your home and thus "carbon footprint," and vow never to ride on a plane. If you believe that Syrians are true refugees, take them into your homes. House them, feed them, clothe them, and let them care for your children. Americans are over your glaring hypocrisy, liberals. Live your values. Put up or shut up." If you think that Muslims need to be eliminated, you should probably go shoot up a Mosque you little pussy. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?

Originally posted by Star428
I just noticed the best comment under the article. It was at the very top of comment section:


"Liberals: if you truly believe "climate change" is worse than terrorism, pledge right now to sell your car, downsize your home and thus "carbon footprint," and vow never to ride on a plane. If you believe that Syrians are true refugees, take them into your homes. House them, feed them, clothe them, and let them care for your children. Americans are over your glaring hypocrisy, liberals. Live your values. Put up or shut up."

Gay Couple Opens Their Home to 24 Refugees

https://media.riffsy.com/images/436a4a665fbf28c14b364af59f06122e/raw

24...?

pretty sure they're opening a gay arab themed strip club or something tbh

Originally posted by NemeBro
If you think that Muslims need to be eliminated, you should probably go shoot up a Mosque you little pussy. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you? He wants it bad.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://i.imgur.com/YsyTHPK.jpg No way he's landing that, ****ing poser.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your posts are the worst..say something half way humorous for once Q99.


I think I'd rather point out how you and Star are acting butthurt over people not using the over-generalized language you want them to- even though right now, Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, even ones you'd probably call 'radical,' are doing far more to fight Isis than you could hope to.




You're acting really, really sore, over people not using a phrase. Think about that for a second. Not using a word you have a problem with, or misusing a word, or even a semantic argument, nothing that insults you, or anyone you know, or anyone period, but just not using a phrase.

And even the only Republican in 20 years who actually showed he could win the presidency and who is way too warlike for probably every liberal here, is not on your side on this.



The reason why people don't use it has been mentioned- it's overly broad, it includes people who aren't our enemies, it includes people fighting our enemies, and we have actual specific names for our enemies so we don't have to rely on inaccurate generalities. Everyone is even on the same page that Isis/Daesh is our enemies who need to be wiped out. And Al Qaeda, and so on. There's no disagreement on that part.

You are, in effect, very angry that people are simply just using different, more precise words. That's an impressive level of thin-skinned, I must say.

Originally posted by Q99
I think I'd rather point out how you and Star are acting butthurt over people not using the over-generalized language you want them to- even though right now, Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, even ones you'd probably blah blah blah

Proof I am butthurt about anything and prove I said any of this, or more lies like you lie about everything else? Also your long winded posts are incredibly boring and don't add up to anything, mind trimming the fat? Liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Proof I am butthurt about anything and prove I said any of this, or more lies like you lie about everything else? Also your long winded posts are incredibly morning and don't add up to anything, mind trimming the fat? Liar.






Also, LOL@ her ridiculous claim that we are "butthurt" about anything. Libs are so delusional aren't they? Let's see who's butthurt after a Republican wins the next election.

Originally posted by Digi
Great post.

Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing, to suggest that is to say all Islam is radical then is it not? You cant have it both ways.

I find it extremely odd that all the liberals here in the past have said radicals are the ones we are fighting, now the DNC releases this completely stupid add and now people here are saying that actually "radical" is over generalizing?

So we just call it evil, well guess what everything is evil, are we going to lump this in with the massive generalization of the word evil now?

This is just another trick the DNC has pulled over peoples eyes like Q99 and Poe and they swallow it up hand and fist.

Its pathetic really.

Originally posted by Q99
I think I'd rather point out how you and Star are acting butthurt over people not using the over-generalized language you want them to- even though right now, Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, even ones you'd probably call 'radical,' are doing far more to fight Isis than you could hope to.




You're acting really, really sore, over people not using a phrase. Think about that for a second. Not using a word you have a problem with, or misusing a word, or even a semantic argument, nothing that insults you, or anyone you know, or anyone period, but just not using a phrase.

And even the only Republican in 20 years who actually showed he could win the presidency and who is way too warlike for probably every liberal here, is not on your side on this.



The reason why people don't use it has been mentioned- it's overly broad, it includes people who aren't our enemies, it includes people fighting our enemies, and we have actual specific names for our enemies so we don't have to rely on inaccurate generalities. Everyone is even on the same page that Isis/Daesh is our enemies who need to be wiped out. And Al Qaeda, and so on. There's no disagreement on that part.

You are, in effect, very angry that people are simply just using different, more precise words. That's an impressive level of thin-skinned, I must say.

What is so sad about this piss poor post, is you missed the entire point, I bet you did not even read the article because you thought it was bias, which means you missed the actual commercial the DNC put out.. Saying the word radical is not over generalizing.

Just stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself then you already are.

I can see why the media and politicians would avoid the term, but radical Islam is indeed the enemy here. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, etc.; what do they all have in common? They're all radical, violent Islamists.

TI, you are overdoing it once more on the highly aggressive/defensive posts. You've had too many warnings there- next one is a ban.

He lied about what I said, I never said anything remotely close to what he is claiming.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing, to suggest that is to say all Islam is radical then is it not? You cant have it both ways.

I find it extremely odd that all the liberals here in the past have said radicals are the ones we are fighting, now the DNC releases this completely stupid add and now people here are saying that actually "radical" is over generalizing?

So we just call it evil, well guess what everything is evil, are we going to lump this in with the massive generalization of the word evil now?

This is just another trick the DNC has pulled over peoples eyes like Q99 and Poe and they swallow it up hand and fist.

Its pathetic really. Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is so sad about this piss poor post, is you missed the entire point, I bet you did not even read the article because you thought it was bias, which means you missed the actual commercial the DNC put out.. Saying the word radical is not over generalizing.

Just stop before you make a bigger fool of yourself then you already are.


It's alright, TI. As that article pointed out, only 8% of Americans polled agree with people like Q99 and Poe. So, it's safe to say that this forum does not represent the general consensus of the American public. It's just a very tiny fraction of not even 1% of voters.

Im fine with not labeling all Muslims radical because that is the truth.

I am not fine with now liberals sayings there are no radical muslims.

This is an obvious falsehood, and its not even a good one. Facts prove otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

Are these people being disingenuous in saying radical islam now too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/reflections-on-europeanis_b_8676016.html

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im fine with not labeling all Muslims radical because that is the truth.

I am not fine with now liberals sayings there are no radical muslims.

This is an obvious falsehood, and its not even a good one. Facts prove otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

Are these people being disingenuous in saying radical islam now too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/reflections-on-europeanis_b_8676016.html



Huffington Post is very liberal-biased too. So they can't claim "oh, that's not a reliable source because it's right wing" like they always do when they don't agree with what it's saying.

Liberal sources like that will be scrutinized and when they can't be debunked, I will get the long page of "this isn't what the article says, and here is why." When clearly its exactly what it says, then Rob or someone will come in and quote one portion, take it out of context, and someone claim the victory of the source and flip the entire thing into something different then the writers intent.

How do I know, because it happens every day.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Liberal sources like that will be scrutinized and I will get the long page of "this isn't what the article says, and here is why." When clearly its exactly what it says, then Rob or someone will come in and quote one portion, take it out of context, and someone claim the victory of the source and flip the entire thing into something different then the writers intent.

How do I know, because it happens every day.



Good post.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im fine with not labeling all Muslims radical because that is the truth.

I am not fine with now liberals sayings there are no radical muslims.

This is an obvious falsehood, and its not even a good one. Facts prove otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

Are these people being disingenuous in saying radical islam now too?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/reflections-on-europeanis_b_8676016.html

Of course there are radical Muslims. But just being a radical Muslim does not make a person our enemy. Radical is not the same as anti-Western, violent, terrorist, etc. Even if we say radical Islamist terrorists, that isn't actually specific enough to explain who we are actively fighting. For example, Iran may fall under that however we are a) making treaties with them and b) they are fighting Daesh as well.

Further than whether it is accurate to call these groups radical Islamist terrorists (which I grant that it is), there's also the question of whether it is prudent to call them that politically. As others have pointed out, by using this term we are actually supporting what our enemies want. It feels like we are lumping all Muslims together (not helped by people like Trump and Carson who actually are lumping all Muslims together), and Daesh and other terrorists groups can use this wording as a recruitment tool, which makes them stronger and our position weaker. So it is not smart to call them that, even though it is technically accurate.

So the radical country that wrote a book on how to outsmart the us, chants death to America and says they will not uphold the agreement and no other agreements will be made is our friend...

Mind explaining that one?

This isn't about trump or carson, so quit bringing them up , that is for the primary thread stick to the topic please.

Since when is sticking to the facts not smart?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So the radical country that wrote a book on how to outsmart the us, chants death to America and says they will not uphold the agreement and no other agreements will be made is our friend...

Mind explaining that one?

This isn't about trump or carson, so quit bringing them up , that is for the primary thread stick to the topic please.

Since when is sticking to the facts not smart?

No, not our friend by any means. A non-coordinating ally in this fight against Daesh however.

This is partly about Trump and Carson as well. We are talking about the best way to frame our political opposition to our enemies. Trump and Carson are not only public, political figures, they are front-runners for the presidential candidacy, so the phrasing they use is similarly under scrutiny.

The thing is, further than just using the term "radical Islam" yourselfs, you also want your political opponents to use it. The question is why? Their phrasing of the issue is just as accurate if not more so (and as pointed out, it is strategically better), why do you need them to say "radical Islam"?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Since when is sticking to the facts not smart?

Since war was invented? Deception is a critical tool for any kind of human conflict.

Originally posted by Bentley
Since war was invented? Deception is a critical tool for any kind of human conflict.

Additionally "sticking to the facts" is not one thing. There's always different interpretations of the facts. And as it pertains to this issue, neither side actually doesn't stick to the facts, they just focus on different aspects of them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, not our friend by any means. A non-coordinating ally in this fight against Daesh however.

This is partly about Trump and Carson as well. We are talking about the best way to frame our political opposition to our enemies. Trump and Carson are not only public, political figures, they are front-runners for the presidential candidacy, so the phrasing they use is similarly under scrutiny.

The thing is, further than just using the term "radical Islam" yourselfs, you also want your political opponents to use it. The question is why? Their phrasing of the issue is just as accurate if not more so (and as pointed out, it is strategically better), why do you need them to say "radical Islam"?

I know you want to be friends with Iran, go ahead. Not for me, you are liable to wind up dead over there for even going.

OP says nothing about Trump or Carson, nor did the source, so do you mind leaving that debate to the presidential thread. It has no business here.

Radical Islam is the fundamental term and it is appropriate, and no amount of cow towing, shapeshifting or crafty speech can change it.

Do you call a murder a murder or come up with a more "friendly version."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally "sticking to the facts" is not one thing. There's always different interpretations of the facts. And as it pertains to this issue, neither side actually doesn't stick to the facts, they just focus on different aspects of them.

No no, there is no other fact but this, radical islam does exist. You can't change facts, no amount of talking around it will help either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No no, there is no other fact but this, radical islam does exist. You can't change facts, no amount of talking around it will help either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

And I have agreed with that. Radical Islam does exists. A subset of "Radical Islam" is "Radical Islamist Terrorism", which is closer to what we are fighting.

However the group called "Daesh" also exists. And saying "we are fighting Daesh" is just as accurate, if not more so, than saying "we are fighting Radical Islamist Terrorism".

OK we agree, so do you disagree with the stupid commercial the DNC came out with?

No, I agree with the DNC commercial, for the reasons I stated. It's tactically better not to call it "Radical Islamist Terrorism" and it is a huge oversimplification to call it "Radical Islam".

LMAO. Of course you agree with it. That commercial is a joke. "Tactically better", my ass. I know u think democrats are some kind of geniuses (LOL) and saints who can do no wrong but pull your head out. I suppose, in your fantasy world of nothing but rainbows and sunshine, that when Obama said "ISIS is contained" right before the Paris attacks that that was "tactically better" too, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I agree with the DNC commercial, for the reasons I stated. It's tactically better not to call it "Radical Islamist Terrorism" and it is a huge oversimplification to call it "Radical Islam".

Then by this logic calling a murderer a murderer is oversimplification.

Originally posted by Star428
LMAO. Of course you agree with it. That commercial is a joke. "Tactically better", my ass. I know u think democrats are some kind of geniuses (LOL) and saints who can do no wrong but pull your head out. I suppose, in your fantasy world of nothing but rainbows and sunshine, that when Obama said "ISIS is contained" right before the Paris attacks that that was "tactically better" too, eh?

It is true, he did say this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-terror-attacks-obama-isis-contained/

It is obvious that he was saying the Daesh Caliphate's advancement has been geographically contained, that does not mean they are not a threat.

Sure sure, he always leaves himself a way out.

Or maybe he's just generally honest.

Honest? Maybe, generally no..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or maybe he's just generally honest.






Seriously, dude... Obama and "honest" (just like Hillary and "honest" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence; or even in the same paragraph for that matter.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". LMAO. Or, better yet, "I'm a Christian".


Sure you are, Obammy.

Originally posted by red g jacks
24...?

pretty sure they're opening a gay arab themed strip club or something tbh

Yeah here it is illegal to have that many people living in one place.

As for the arab themed strip club..I hear late at night they sometimes show ankle!!

Hmmm. I wonder if I should get upset that FOX and other republican sources don't call crazy white guys who go on murder sprees and burn down churches "domestic terrorists" or "racist" or "radical christians"(since by some peoples logic, a middle eastern terrorist is immediately "Radical Islam" and not a disgrace to 99% of the practicing religion and population who would disown them if they had that power.)They always call them "mentally unstable" or something like that.

Being upset at FOX over anything is a waste of energy. Watching paint dry would be a better use of said energy.

Originally posted by KingD19
Hmmm. I wonder if I should get upset that FOX and other republican sources don't call crazy white guys who go on murder sprees and burn down churches "domestic terrorists" or "racist" or "radical christians"(since by some peoples logic, a middle eastern terrorist is immediately "Radical Islam" and not a disgrace to 99% of the practicing religion and population who would disown them if they had that power.)They always call them "mentally unstable" or something like that.

Actually Mike Huckabee called him a domestic terrorist. It's generally the left that has been calling mass shooters mentally ill.

Originally posted by Q99
Let's remember who else took that stance:

https://49.media.tumblr.com/917a6fd8ba2bd8023ca4b4100d2447c3/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo8_540.gif

https://49.media.tumblr.com/0bac6e0632546f98370257c924458086/tumblr_ny8nfek8n61r83d7lo9_540.gif

Made less than a week after 9/11.


Overgeneralizing your opponent in order to include people who are *not* your opponent is a bad idea that helps your enemies because they use your blanket targeting as a recruiting tool.

Being mad at people for being more *specific* than you about who the enemy is is dumb and counterproductive.

And rallying about how "incredibly wrong" people in the other party are for taking a stance that your party's leadership used to openly say in recent memory, is silly and dumb.

Calling somone a radical is not over generalizing. No amount of agreeing with a lie will change it to a truth. Obama has even called them radicals.

You are basically agreeing with a fairy tail.

TIL: Some right-wingers want to actually help ISIS with their propaganda machine and make it easier from them to recruit the easily impressionable

What a disgusting group of cavemen.

Originally posted by Peace Keeper
What a disgusting group of cavemen.

I feel like you are insulting cavemen here.

Originally posted by Robtard
TIL: Some right-wingers want to actually help ISIS with their propaganda machine and make it easier from them to recruit the easily impressionable

Link?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Link?

HYG:http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/19/the-problem-with-right-wing-media-outrage-over/202575

Right-wing media are scandalizing President Obama's refusal to conflate terrorism with all of Islam, attacking the president for not focusing on "Islamic extremism" in the three-day White House summit to combat violent extremism. But the conservative outrage ignores the fact that conflating terrorism with an entire religion would harm U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by alienating allied Muslim nations and play into the hands of terrorists who claim the U.S. is at war with Islam. -snip

Making more enemies and helping groups like ISIS more easily recruit impressionable idiots isn't a good idea.

ISIS desperately wants the West to bite into the "War on Islam" propaganda machine, as it directly helps their cause and many Conservatives seem more than happy to play along. It's baffling.

Well now I don't know if calling it "Islamic extremism" actually equates all of Islam with terrorism.

Originally posted by Robtard
HYG:http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/19/the-problem-with-right-wing-media-outrage-over/202575

Right-wing media are scandalizing President Obama's refusal to conflate terrorism with all of Islam, attacking the president for not focusing on "Islamic extremism" in the three-day White House summit to combat violent extremism. But the conservative outrage ignores the fact that conflating terrorism with an entire religion would harm U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by alienating allied Muslim nations and play into the hands of terrorists who claim the U.S. is at war with Islam. -snip

Making more enemies and helping groups like ISIS more easily recruit impressionable idiots isn't a good idea.

ISIS desperately wants the West to bite into the "War on Islam" propaganda machine, as it directly helps their cause and many Conservatives seem more than happy to play along. It's baffling.
Lol media matters?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well now I don't know if calling it "Islamic extremism" actually equates all of Islam with terrorism.
It doesn't. It's a deceptively written slam peice by a left wing ideologue.

Originally posted by Robtard
HYG:http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/19/the-problem-with-right-wing-media-outrage-over/202575

Right-wing media are scandalizing President Obama's refusal to conflate terrorism with all of Islam, attacking the president for not focusing on "Islamic extremism" in the three-day White House summit to combat violent extremism. But the conservative outrage ignores the fact that conflating terrorism with an entire religion would harm U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by alienating allied Muslim nations and play into the hands of terrorists who claim the U.S. is at war with Islam. -snip

Making more enemies and helping groups like ISIS more easily recruit impressionable idiots isn't a good idea.

ISIS desperately wants the West to bite into the "War on Islam" propaganda machine, as it directly helps their cause and many Conservatives seem more than happy to play along. It's baffling.

You must agree that source is as left wing as and as bias as the source people claim Star posted. So why does this get credit?

LoL, K. It shouldn't be a Left or Right thing though, it's common sense. Propagating enemy propaganda that helps said enemy isn't a good idea.

There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. I don't understand why liberals refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Even Muslims themselves don't consider themselves as moderate.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, K. It shouldn't be a Left or Right thing though, it's common sense. Propagating enemy propaganda that helps said enemy isn't a good idea.
Like "Islam is a religion of peace"?



Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. I don't understand why liberals refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Even Muslims themselves don't consider themselves as moderate.
Islam is by its very nature anti white Christian male. Liberals believe all the world's evil stems from white Christian males. So, in the mind of a liberal, Islam is their friend.

Is that you Longpig? Still trying to cope with your micro-penis it seems. Have a good one either way

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. I don't understand why liberals refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Even Muslims themselves don't consider themselves as moderate.

Okay, I know moderate Muslims though, so....

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, K. It shouldn't be a Left or Right thing though, it's common sense. Propagating enemy propaganda that helps said enemy isn't a good idea.
Like "Islam is a religion of peace"?



Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. I don't understand why liberals refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Even Muslims themselves don't consider themselves as moderate.
Islam is by its very nature anti white Christian male. Liberals believe all the world's evil stems from white Christian males. So, in the mind of a liberal, Islam is their friend. Originally posted by Robtard
Is that you Longpig? Still trying to cope with your micro-penis it seems. Have a good one either way
Close!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I know moderate Muslims though, so.... Lol, AF's post didn't even make sense.

Originally posted by Robtard

ISIS desperately wants the West to bite into the "War on Islam" propaganda machine, as it directly helps their cause and many Conservatives seem more than happy to play along. It's baffling.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Peace Keeper
Like "Islam is a religion of peace"?




Islam is by its very nature anti white Christian male. Liberals believe all the world's evil stems from white Christian males. So, in the mind of a liberal, Islam is their friend.
Close!




LMAO@ Retard's obsession with "micro penises" and LOL@him claiming we're "helping" the enemy by calling them what they really are. That's like saying the Allies were helping the Germans in WW2 by calling them "Nazis".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You must agree that source is as left wing as and as bias as the source people claim Star posted. So why does this get credit?



Oh, it most certainly doesn't. We can play the same game they do when they post a biased liberal source.

Originally posted by Q99
I think I'd rather point out how you and Star are acting butthurt over people not using the over-generalized language you want them to- even though right now, Muslims, Arab and non-Arab, even ones you'd probably call 'radical,' are doing far more to fight Isis than you could hope to.




You're acting really, really sore, over people not using a phrase. Think about that for a second. Not using a word you have a problem with, or misusing a word, or even a semantic argument, nothing that insults you, or anyone you know, or anyone period, but just not using a phrase.

And even the only Republican in 20 years who actually showed he could win the presidency and who is way too warlike for probably every liberal here, is not on your side on this.



The reason why people don't use it has been mentioned- it's overly broad, it includes people who aren't our enemies, it includes people fighting our enemies, and we have actual specific names for our enemies so we don't have to rely on inaccurate generalities. Everyone is even on the same page that Isis/Daesh is our enemies who need to be wiped out. And Al Qaeda, and so on. There's no disagreement on that part.

You are, in effect, very angry that people are simply just using different, more precise words. That's an impressive level of thin-skinned, I must say. this whole semantic argument is pretty uninteresting to me... but i don't understand what is so overly broad about the phrase "radical islam"

it really depends on who you define as radicals. sure, we're not at war with all radicals. only the particular groups that are openly hostile to us. but at the end of the day, referring to "radical islam" as the source of the terrorists who we are specifically fighting seems pretty accurate to me. and while we aren't at war with all religious extremists, all religious extremists are problematic for a secular society.

i mean we have no problem referring to christian extremists as christian extremists... based on the arguments against using the phrase posed by the democrats, basically they just think that using the word "islam" will alienate muslims, even if the term in question is completely accurate. this is just a case of calculated political correctness for the sake of shoring up votes and political good will... which maybe makes sense for career politicians, but doesn't make sense for the rest of us. so why would we (normal people) imitate this nonsense? just makes you guys look like brainwashed pawns to me.

Originally posted by Star428
LMAO@ Retard's obsession with "micro penises" and LOL@him claiming we're "helping" the enemy by calling them what they really are.

That's like saying the Allies were helping the Germans in WW2 by calling them "Nazis".

So you do read what I write. LoL!

That's a very poor analogy, a proper analogy would have been: "like the Allies referring to Nazi rhetoric of them being a master race and agreeing with it."

Rob since when does calling them radicals become generalizing? Everyone on the left keeps flip flopping here. When is it going to stop?

we've always been at war with eastasia, guys. if you acknowledge that islamic terror is an outgrowth of the islamic religion then the terrists win.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this whole semantic argument is pretty uninteresting to me... but i don't understand what is so overly broad about the phrase "radical islam"

it really depends on who you define as radicals. sure, we're not at war with all radicals. only the particular groups that are openly hostile to us. but at the end of the day, referring to "radical islam" as the source of the terrorists who we are specifically fighting seems pretty accurate to me. and while we aren't at war with all religious extremists, all religious extremists are problematic for a secular society.

i mean we have no problem referring to christian extremists as christian extremists... based on the arguments against using the phrase posed by the democrats, basically they just think that using the word "islam" will alienate muslims, even if the term in question is completely accurate. this is just a case of calculated political correctness for the sake of shoring up votes and political good will... which maybe makes sense for career politicians, but doesn't make sense for the rest of us. so why would we (normal people) imitate this nonsense? just makes you guys look like brainwashed pawns to me.

We also don't really use the term Radical Christianity (and if mainstream sources or Obama did the Christians in our country would feel alienated, and places like Fox News would lose their shit).

I think the argument that it helps push away neutral Muslims, increases Islamophobia within our countries, and is a good recruiting tool for Daesh and other groups like it is a very valid one, why do you not buy that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob since when does calling them radicals become generalizing? Everyone on the left keeps flip flopping here. When is it going to stop?

Why not just call them what they are? Terrorist. Why force it to be something about "Islam" when 99.999% of Muslims aren't out chopping heads off and shooting people while shouting 'durrka durrka'?

Forcing it to be a "Us vs Islam" sort of thing is what groups like ISIS wants, they need that separation in order to survive and recruit.

They are committing murder based on a radical belief of Islam..that comes right out of the same Koran the moderates believe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We also don't really use the term Radical Christianity (and if mainstream sources or Obama did the Christians in our country would feel alienated, and places like Fox News would lose their shit).

I think the argument that it helps push away neutral Muslims, increases Islamophobia within our countries, and is a good recruiting tool for Daesh and other groups like it is a very valid one, why do you not buy that?

The term radical Christianity has been used plenty of times here, please don't be disingenuous and say it has not.

There has been multiple terrorists attacks where people came right out and said "Radical Christians."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The term radical Christianity has been used plenty of times here, please don't be disingenuous and say it has not.

There has been multiple terrorists attacks where people came right out and said "Radical Christians."
It actually hasn't been, as far as I can tell.

Yeah? Maybe you can show some links so we can see.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They are committing murder based on a radical belief of Islam..that comes right out of the same Koran the moderates believe.

Regardless of what the Qur'an says, if 99.999% of Muslims aren't out committing murder because of their belief system, why do you want to associate the 99.999% with the very few by throwing in "Islam", is it that important?

Again, why not just call them what they are? Terrorist.

So your going to sit here and say people have not criticized radical christians? if you are going to ignore facts, I wont carry on a conversation with you. Its real funny how you flip flop.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They are committing murder based on a radical belief of Islam..that comes right out of the same Koran the moderates believe.



Tbh, it's that reason that I don't even think we should use the term "Radical Islam". Just calling it Islam would be much more honest, frankly.


I guarantee you that all these libs here, and in the media, and the liberal candidates themselves have not actually read the Koran. If they did, they wouldn't be calling Islam the "religion of peace"; and before some Christian-hating troll comes along (like they inevitably always do) and brings up some violent punishment laws (like stoning) stated in the Old Testament of the Bible, here's an eye-opener for them: Christianity is based on the New Testament. Not the Old. Jesus never advocated violence. EVER. But Muslims HolyBook, The Koran, certainly does and in fact even commands it. But sure, it's the religion of peace alright.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So your going to sit here and say people have not criticized radical christians? if you are going to ignore facts, I wont carry on a conversation with you. Its real funny how you flip flop.

No, of course people have criticized "radical Christians", they just haven't used the term "Radical Christianity" much, if at all, because that's just a thing that we don't really say.

Originally posted by Robtard
Regardless of what the Qur'an says, if 99.999% of Muslims aren't out committing murder because of their belief system, why do you want to associate the 99.999% with the very few by throwing in "Islam", is it that important?

Again, why not just call them what they are? Terrorist.

Why are white supremacists called white supremacists and not just supremacists since 99.9% of the white population are not out burning crosses and hanging black people?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, of course people have criticized "radical Christians", they just haven't used the term "Radical Christianity" much, if at all, because that's just a thing that we don't really say.

I have seen it used here multiple times here within the last 6 months.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why are white supremacists called white supremacists and not just supremacists since 99.9% of the white population are not out burning crosses and hanging black people?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I have seen it used here multiple times here within the last 6 months.

A couple links could just put this to bed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I have seen it used here multiple times here within the last 6 months.

Mostly to point out how we don't really see it in the media and as a general term like we do Radical Islam, it is not a thing widely accepted, even though here in my country- the US- there's been more attacks and deaths from terrorist actions by people who are extremist Christians.


I don't advocate using the term 'Radical Christians,' I don't recommend anyone else does, but people will almost certainly continue to bring it up to you if you keep insisting on this 'radical islam' thing.

It's the same naming scheme based on the same logic, why reject one while simultaneously being mad at people for not using the other? Double-standard there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A couple links could just put this to bed.

Oh please, I have to go back and find them now. I bet Rob will admit to talking about African Christian Radicals..

Originally posted by Bardock42
We also don't really use the term Radical Christianity (and if mainstream sources or Obama did the Christians in our country would feel alienated, and places like Fox News would lose their shit). "we don't use it" says who? i have no problem with the term radical christianity. maybe it doesn't pop up in as many speeches by politicians like obama & co because 1) they are politicians, and america is a highly christian country 2) christian terrorism simply isn't as much of an issue for the US as islamic terror atm.

i understand the pragmatic reasons why obama might not use it, as i said. he's a career politician. we can't really expect that our politicians are going to be 100% straight up with their use of language all the time... that's part of the game

but for the rest of us, nah. i don't agree that we should self-censor by refusing to use an (accurate) term because it doesn't gel with the political narrative we would like to push. seems over the top and somewhat orwellian, to me.

Originally posted by red g jacks
"we don't use it" says who? i have no problem with the term radical christianity. maybe it doesn't pop up in as many speeches by politicians like obama & co because 1) they are politicians, and america is a highly christian country 2) christian terrorism simply isn't as much of an issue for the US as islamic terror atm.

i understand the pragmatic reasons why obama might not use it, as i said. he's a career politician. we can't really expect that our politicians are going to be 100% straight up with their use of language all the time... that's part of the game

but for the rest of us, nah. i don't agree that we should self-censor by refusing to use an (accurate) term because it doesn't gel with the political narrative we would like to push. seems over the top and somewhat orwellian, to me.

You misstate the pragmatic reason though. You are implying that the "pragmatic reason" is scoring points with voters as a career politician. When really the "pragmatic reason" is not letting our enemies use our words as recruitment tools while simultaneously pushing away allies.

The way you phrase it you make it seem like it's just stupid PC bullshit, or something, when it's actual a prudent tactic in the fight against Daesh.

Again, I don't think it is self-censoring to choose a more accurate term when talking about it, I myself have said that I agree it is technically correct, but that I view just saying "radical Islam" as too broad to make much sense for our conversation (the same way that just saying Islam is technically correct, but even further too broad, I assume at this step you would agree).

It is like deliberately making a less accurate point, and I don't see why I should do that.

And soon Daesh will become to "mean" and we will be onto another term for the pc brigade. When does it stop Bardock, are you not tired of making everyone feel good, especially the murders? Don't you think they laugh at people for squabbling over what to call them?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And soon Daesh will become to "mean" and we will be onto another term for the pc brigade. When does it stop Bardock, are you not tired of making everyone feel good, especially the murders? Don't you think they laugh at people for squabbling over what to call them?

Actually, we went to "Daesh" because it was meaner than the previous term we used. Basically we are using the terms that are most effective at weakening our enemies.

And no, they do not laugh at us for squabbling over what to call them, they hope we do not call them Daesh, they hope we call them "Radical Muslims". I'd prefer them not to get what they want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, we went to "Daesh" because it was meaner than the previous term we used. Basically we are using the terms that are most effective at weakening our enemies.

I doubt they feel weakened, if anything calling them names makes them angrier. And you only addressed 1/4 of my post.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why are white supremacists called white supremacists and not just supremacists since 99.9% of the white population are not out burning crosses and hanging black people?

Because they're white. j/k

Good one, actually. But it seems the race aspect is their to separate them from other racially based groups. Like the very much smaller "black supremacist" movement.

I suspect you'll throw a "but saying Islam just separates them from other terrorist", which of course as B42 pointed out, we don't really use "Radical Christianity", or radical+any-other-religion really. Case in point, the IRA are labeled as political terrorist, they're not often called "Radical Catholics", cos that would upset the Catholic Church and Catholics.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I doubt they feel weakened, if anything calling them names makes them angrier. And you only addressed 1/4 of my post.

Maybe it makes them angrier, but who cares. It makes it harder for them to recruit, meaning they are less people, meaning they can do less harm.

I'm sorry, you edited while I already wrote my response, I have added to my post to address your full argument.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Proof I am butthurt about anything and prove I said any of this, or more lies like you lie about everything else? Also your long winded posts are incredibly boring and don't add up to anything, mind trimming the fat? Liar.


Well, you're complaining about people not using the term radical islam.

Quotage from you right here in this thread:
"Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing,"

So, there you go, you're both complaining on the topic and insulting people who disagree with you for doing so. That looks pretty butthurt to me.


I don't know why you go, "prove I'm X!" about stuff you're actively visibly doing, and then do again just a few posts later. And you got pretty angry when you were called out on doing it.

It doesn't work very well to accuse me of lying for doing something... while it's, y'know, right there that you're doing it


It's like you don't quite get how calling people out works. When someone calls you on something, you go, "Hah, I can turn the tables by asking them to prove it!"... only not realizing that if you're actually doing it and it takes zero effort to point that out, it simply makes you look defensive and paranoid.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh please, I have to go back and find them now. I bet Rob will admit to talking about African Christian Radicals..

Every time Christians in Africa was brought up, you dismissed it on the grounds of Africa not counting, somehow. So sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Rob you know and I know you will admit we have had many arguments over talking about Radical Christianity, and how it is almost completely irrelevant. At least vouch for the conversations we have had. Even Obama has criticized christianity and compared islam to the crusades..

I'm not disagreeing that Christianity comes under scrutiny and that we do talk about Christian extremists. But we almost never use "Radical Christianity" in the way people want to use "Radical Islam". And when I say "we" I mean both on KMC and the media and politicians.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob you know and I know you will admit we have had many arguments over talking about Radical Christianity, and how it is almost completely irrelevant.

Again, if you live in the US, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack by them than you are a terrorist attack from Muslims.


If you're so afraid of Muslims, why aren't you more afraid of these groups?

And/or if you're not afraid of these groups, why don't you become less afraid of Muslims?

I recommend the latter.

Except of course I don't think I've ever used the words "Radical Christianity". When I brought up the atrocities that happen in Africa, it was to point out that religion can be used to do awful things, not just Islam.

Originally posted by Q99
Again, if you live in the US, you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack by them than you are a terrorist attack from Muslims.


If you're so afraid of Muslims, why aren't you more afraid of these groups?

And/or if you're not afraid of these groups, why don't you become less afraid of Muslims?

I recommend the latter.

Another useless irrelevant snipe that has nothing to do with what I said, are you looking for me to get mad again for blatantly lying and misrepresenting posts? Keep your opinions to yourself if you can't stay on topic. Prove I ever said I was afraid of muslims. I might as well report you for trolling.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course I don't think I've ever used the words "Radical Christianity". When I brought up the atrocities that happen in Africa, it was to point out that religion can be used to do awful things, not just Islam.

At least we agree we discussed it. Thanks.

Yeah, but not in the way it relates to the topic between you and B42.

Im mearly brining up the fact that people not just you, this includes Obama trying to find relevance to christianity by bringing up the crusades and things like it. When its is barely relevant.

Originally posted by Q99
Well, you're complaining about people not using the term radical islam.

Quotage from you right here in this thread:
"Since when did calling radical islam become over generalizing in your opinion Digi?

Are you really going to agree with a ignoramus that now the word "radical" is not politically correct and that saying radical is generalizing,"

So, there you go, you're both complaining on the topic and insulting people who disagree with you for doing so. That looks pretty butthurt to me.


I don't know why you go, "prove I'm X!" about stuff you're actively visibly doing, and then do again just a few posts later. And you got pretty angry when you were called out on doing it.

It doesn't work very well to accuse me of lying for doing something... while it's, y'know, right there that you're doing it


It's like you don't quite get how calling people out works. When someone calls you on something, you go, "Hah, I can turn the tables by asking them to prove it!"... only not realizing that if you're actually doing it and it takes zero effort to point that out, it simply makes you look defensive and paranoid.

Reported for continued baiting/antagonizing after warning from mod.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You misstate the pragmatic reason though. You are implying that the "pragmatic reason" is scoring points with voters as a career politician. When really the "pragmatic reason" is not letting our enemies use our words as recruitment tools while simultaneously pushing away allies.

The way you phrase it you make it seem like it's just stupid PC bullshit, or something, when it's actual a prudent tactic in the fight against Daesh.
i would like to see evidence that changing our language will in fact slow the recruitment of terrorists. not just the rationale for how it hypothetically will work, which i'm aware of. is there any data backing up the idea that this strategy will even reap the desired results? i mean didn't you guys cite GW bush as a precedent for highlighting the difference between "islam" and the terrorists that we are fighting? the language they used was in line with what you support. how effective was their administration at subverting terrorist propaganda? language is important... but language isn't everything.

as long as westerners are in muslim countries with armies and shit, there is going to be that undertone of the "clash of civilizations" in the minds of many middle eastern muslims and western christians alike. sure, we should stress that this isn't the case. hence why attacking "islam" with the same kind of broad brush that many liberal atheists often attack "christianity" is counter productive in this regard.

so if the argument is that we shouldn't say we're at war with radical islam, i agree we shouldn't say that. because there are many radical islamic countries that we cooperate with and/or i would like us to try to cooperate with, such as saudi arabia, iran, pakistan, etc. so we should be accurate about who we're at war with an who we're not... that level of diplomacy necessary. and especially when it comes to public speakers.

but for the rest of us... for liberals to refer to "radical islam" as a problem or even as a source for the terror we're fighting.. there really isn't a problem to me. i mean there are a lot of people in saudi arabia who are silently pleased with ISIS just because they are sunni wahhabi muslims like themselves. yet we do try to maintain good relations with saudi arabia... which is a radical islamic state. but the connection is clear and apparent. acting in denial won't win the respect of people who don't like us, it just makes us look foolish and easily deceived.

when it comes to self-censorship... i could be wrong but im getting the impression that theres some sort of campaign specifically not to use that term for political reasons. it's not self-censorship to choose a different term you like better... but it starts to seem that way when we have to have a big collective discussion about why not to use a term that is admittedly accurate.

and in regard to speaking about the worldwide problem with different sects of the muslim religion... "radical islam" is about as accurate a term as i can think of.

i mean when we talk about the radical right wing groups that are on the rise in this country, we have no problem branding them as such. nor should we. just acknowledging which strain of extremism the extremists in question are representing does not imply in any was that it's us vs all muslims or us vs all right wingers. it is actually sort of condescending to suggest so. like the people in question are too stupid to make the distinction.

also... with regard to the whole "isis wants to be called radical muslims so we should call them daesh instead"

could care less what they want. you think you're winning some victory there? you're just indulging them more than you need to. the second you start asking "what would isis want" when choosing your words you are granting them a symbolic victory. as far as im concerned, if they call themselves the islamic state then that's who they are. let them fly that flag, chop off as many heads as they want, and let people in that region associate the terror that they bring with the islamic state. then let them decide whether the islamic state is something they want to keep around.

I just don't see the fuss over calling it "Radical Islam" when just calling it "lslamic Extremism" paints more or less the same picture while also getting across the fact that it's not the entire religion that is the problem.

Especially when to me an "extremist" sounds worse then a "radical".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im mearly brining up the fact that people not just you, this includes Obama trying to find relevance to christianity by bringing up the crusades and things like it. When its is barely relevant.

Ok, you convinced me, they're radical Islamist and I'm going to say it every chance I get.

i honestly don't see much difference between the two terms... radial islam doesn't refer to the entire islamic religion any more than islamic extremism does. if you interpret it as the entire religion of islam has gone radical, then you're just misunderstanding the term. it's referring to the radical portion of islam. but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ok, you convinced me, they're radical Islamist and I'm going to say it every chance I get.



Originally posted by red g jacks
i honestly don't see much difference between the two terms... radial islam doesn't refer to the entire islamic religion any more than islamic extremism does. if you interpret it as the entire religion of islam has gone radical, then you're just misunderstanding the term. it's referring to the radical portion of islam. but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

It's fine to call ISIS "Daesh", but it's not when you call Muslim extremists "radical Muslims."

That does seem to be correct though, calling this "Radical Islam" doesn't even suggest it means all of Islam.

So I'm not even sure what the issue is.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but any policing of language is a bit irksome to me in general.

I assume it bothers you then that right wing politicians and media want to compel Democratic politicians to use the term "Radical Islam"?

I'd just ask why they are opposed to the phrase?

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's fine to call ISIS "Daesh", but it's not when you call Muslim extremists "radical Muslims."
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
It's fine to call ISIS "Daesh", but it's not when you call Muslim extremists "radical Muslims."

Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume it bothers you then that right wing politicians and media want to compel Democratic politicians to use the term "Radical Islam"?





No one's trying to "compel" them to do anything. Let them keep lying to themselves if they like. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the American public agrees with the Republicans on this matter so most of us know what it is we're actually fighting. Who gives a shit if the liberal PC crowd wants to make believe it's something else. That's their problem. It's not gonna influence those of us who know better so whatever.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd just ask why they are opposed to the phrase?

The main arguments that have also been repeated multiple times in this thread is that using the phrase "radical islam" a) is too broad to exactly describe who our enemies are so more descriptive terms are preferred b) alienates muslims c) increases Islamophobia in Western countries and perhaps most of all d) makes recruitment for Daesh/ISIS easier who use the words of our leaders to legitimise themselves and frame this as a war of "the west" vs. Islam, and therefore directly hurts our military efforts to defeat them.

Radical Islam is not a broad generalization, there is no proof of what you are suggesting. It pertains to the group of radical fundamentalists who pursue violence based off the Koran.

Calling radicals that does no way ensure the west vs islam anymore then saying calling a murder and murder or a white supremacists one.

Look, you may not buy the arguments, and that's fair enough, you can keep saying whatever you want to say. But those are the reasons why people like Obama avoid it, it is unfair to pretend that they do so for other reasons, particularly the repeated lie that he is a Muslim himself and sympathetic to Daesh and Islamist extremist terrorism generally.

Calling them Daesh is what they call themselves..you are just being sympathetic and the left is looking for any way necessary to separate radical from Islam. Even though they become radical because of Islam. That Syrian refugee I talked too even said Islam turns good people bad. I suspect he might have more insight then you on the matter?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume it bothers you then that right wing politicians and media want to compel Democratic politicians to use the term "Radical Islam"? yes i am equally cynical about their motives in prompting such a campaign

i am also cynical that the democratic response has seemingly been to launch a counter campaign not to use the term

i respected obama's reasoning for why he doesn't personally use the term... i don't see why we all need to adopt the same language as our politicians though. i mean the argument is that presumably islamic terror groups are going to take clips of obama talking out of context and use it for propaganda... you can't really say the same about your own words or lets say your posts here on KMC. so really that whole line of reasoning seems irrelevant to me when we're talking about which words you and i use.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yes i am equally cynical about their motives in prompting such a campaign

i am also cynical that the democratic response has seemingly been to launch a counter campaign not to use the term

i respected obama's reasoning for why he doesn't personally use the term... i don't see why we all need to adopt the same language as our politicians though. i mean the argument is that presumably islamic terror groups are going to take clips of obama talking out of context and use it for propaganda... you can't really say the same about your own words or lets say your posts here on KMC. so really that whole line of reasoning seems irrelevant to me when we're talking about which words you and i use.

I do agree, I don't think we should have to adopt the language. If we choose to do so then fair enough, but I don't think getting forceful about which language to use is right, for normal citizens like us (in my case, a citizen of Germany, I know that "citizen" without clarification after all defaults to the US /s).

Now, if you do believe, as Obama seemingly does, that it is harmful to American national security to use these terms, I can understand why they would want a campaign to convince the political opposition to forego using it as well, though. What do you think about that aspect?

Radical Islam is responsible for everything they are responsible for, these are undeniable facts, no amount of cow toeing will change these undeniable facts. They existed long before "ISIS or Daesh" and they will exist long after those groups are gone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The main arguments that have also been repeated multiple times in this thread is that using the phrase "radical islam" a) is too broad to exactly describe who our enemies are so more descriptive terms are preferred b) alienates muslims c) increases Islamophobia in Western countries and perhaps most of all d) makes recruitment for Daesh/ISIS easier who use the words of our leaders to legitimise themselves and frame this as a war of "the west" vs. Islam, and therefore directly hurts our military efforts to defeat them. a) only applies if we are referring specifically who we are at war with/consider geopolitical foes. it doesn't apply in other discussions about the corrosive impact of islamic extremism in general (in which case the generalization is actually more honest then only pointing to specific extremist groups)

b) the current liberal orthodoxy is that moderate muslims recognize the threat of radical islam and are seeking to reform it. as such, they shouldn't have trouble with the term.

c) islamaphobia is a legit concern, but it is increasingly being used as a buzzword to shout down any actual criticism of islamic doctrine or ideology. which once again is an irksome trend.

d) only applies (in the broadest sense) to public speakers and (more specifically) to people making political speeches or commentary on the war on terror.

I also find it extremely funny that the left hates White Christians so much, how many "Radical " Christians run around trying to behead their co workers, or shoot up recruiting offices, or army bases, blow planes up, run them into buildings, bomb warships, trade towers, embassy's.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do agree, I don't think we should have to adopt the language. If we choose to do so then fair enough, but I don't think getting forceful about which language to use is right, for normal citizens like us (in my case, a citizen of Germany, I know that "citizen" without clarification after all defaults to the US /s).

Now, if you do believe, as Obama seemingly does, that it is harmful to American national security to use these terms, I can understand why they would want a campaign to convince the political opposition to forego using it as well, though. What do you think about that aspect? i think that as a calculated move on it's own it might have potential for obama to abstain from using the term... and when questioned about it give his reasoning

i think it would be a mistake for obama to go on an aggressive campaign urging the opposition not to use the term... for pragmatic political reasons. it will serve as an effective source of domestic anti-obama and anti-democratic propaganda... islamic extremists aren't the only ones who can use your words against you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I also find it extremely funny that the left hates White Christians so much, how many "Radical " Christians run around trying to behead their co workers, or shoot up recruiting offices, or army bases, blow planes up, run them into buildings, bomb warships, trade towers, embassy's. well, i don't "hate" christians at all

but at the end of the day i have to deal with their shit a lot more than i have to deal with muslims... because muslims are practically non existent here

so that is why a lot of us liberals are antagonistic towards christians... because they are a more local nuisance to us

if you imported enough conservative muslims into the united states then of course that could change

I guess you don't live in a big city, more like a local town or suburb?

If what you say is true, which I believe it is, its kinda sad honestly that you would be more antagonistic of christians who go to church on Sundays and really don't bother anyone. I don't mean that as a insult either so please don't take it that way..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Radical Islam is responsible for everything they are responsible for, these are undeniable facts, no amount of cow toeing will change these undeniable facts. They existed long before "ISIS or Daesh" and they will exist long after those groups are gone.


Radical Islam is a fairly meaningless broad term, and it makes a lot more sense to focus on specific groups that are actually responsible for things.

Even some loud-radical-sounding-doesn't-like-us groups don't blow anything up, and aren't the problem.

Originally posted by Q99
Radical Islam is a fairly meaningless broad term, and it makes a lot more sense to focus on specific groups that are actually responsible for things.

Even some loud-radical-sounding-doesn't-like-us groups don't blow anything up, and aren't the problem.

Nope, wrong, because Radical Islam existed long before ISIS, or "Daesh." Radical Islam created those groups.

You are just looking for a way out at this point because there is no way for you to prove radical Islam does not exist.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I also find it extremely funny that the left hates White Christians so much, how many "Radical " Christians run around trying to behead their co workers, or shoot up recruiting offices, or army bases, blow planes up, run them into buildings, bomb warships, trade towers, embassy's.

That's just not true though, most Democrats are White Christians.

Not really. A true Christian does believe in killing babies.

They might say they are "Christian" like Obama does.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I also find it extremely funny that the left hates White Christians so much,

Just stop with that faux victim mentally nonsense, the Left is mostly composed of "White Christians", since Christians (78%) and white-people (63%) make up most of the US of A. Thanks

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's just not true though, most Democrats are White Christians.



Source? If it's a left-leaning one then don't even bother to post it. Looks like you have democrats mixed up with republicans.

Most can claim it. But actions speak louder then words. I have a hard time believing Obama says he's "Christian."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Most can claim it.



It's funny because as you said a true Christian would never support something that denies an innocent babies right to live.

Originally posted by Star428
Source? If it's a left-leaning one then don't even bother to post it. Looks like you have democrats mixed up with republicans.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Most can claim it. But actions speak louder then words. I have a hard time believing Obama says he's "Christian."



Only an idiot would actually believe him considering all the things he's done and how he's been so criticizing of Christianity while constantly praising Islam. He's no Christian.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

So wait, if I said I was not a bank robber, but then went around robbing banks..

What am I?

By your standards, then there's not a single true Christian, as I doubt any single Christian lives their life strictly by the teachings of Christ. Tell me, do you love your enemy?

No, I don't believe every democrat thinks abortion is a good thing. Some people put morals above politics. Most people here are atheists, so they put politics as their "god." And there is a difference between a JKF Democrat and a Obama liberal democrat.

Then you're not a Christian by your own standards.

Or you can just accept that most "Lefties/Democrats" are White Christians, since that's what the majority of the US is, as I showed you the demographics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you're not a Christian by your own standards.

Turning to ad hominem fallacy now?