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."
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.
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 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"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.
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?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.
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.