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 Bardock42yes i am equally cynical about their motives in prompting such a campaign
I assume it bothers you then that right wing politicians and media want to compel Democratic politicians to use the term "Radical Islam"?
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 campaigni 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?
Originally posted by Bardock42a) 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)
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42i 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 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 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-Immemorialwell, i don't "hate" christians at all
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.
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.
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 👆