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.
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 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.
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.
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".