5
5
0
From "The Washington Times"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/white-house-inaccurate-use-phrase-radical-islam-ta/
White House: Inaccurate to use phrase ‘radical Islam’ to talk about terrorists
The White House tried to explain Tuesday why it has refused to use the term “radical Islam” in describing the Islamist terrorists responsible for last week’s Paris attacks and other acts of violence across the globe.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration doesn’t want to legitimize those terrorists or the “warped” view of Islam they hold. Also, Mr. Earnest said, the phrase “radical Islam” simply is not an accurate way to describe the enemies of the U.S., France and other nations across the globe.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Considering what the word "radical" actually means (not what the popular press thinks it means and not what "the natural governing class" keeps on telling you it means) I don't disagree with the US government's (and Mr. Obama's) decision not to "legitimize" people like ISIS and Boko Harum by calling them what they are rather than what their PR flacks want you to think they are. These (and similar) groups are NOT "religious reformers" they are murderous sociopaths and the sooner that people start calling them by the correct names then the sooner their gloss will vanish.]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/white-house-inaccurate-use-phrase-radical-islam-ta/
White House: Inaccurate to use phrase ‘radical Islam’ to talk about terrorists
The White House tried to explain Tuesday why it has refused to use the term “radical Islam” in describing the Islamist terrorists responsible for last week’s Paris attacks and other acts of violence across the globe.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration doesn’t want to legitimize those terrorists or the “warped” view of Islam they hold. Also, Mr. Earnest said, the phrase “radical Islam” simply is not an accurate way to describe the enemies of the U.S., France and other nations across the globe.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Considering what the word "radical" actually means (not what the popular press thinks it means and not what "the natural governing class" keeps on telling you it means) I don't disagree with the US government's (and Mr. Obama's) decision not to "legitimize" people like ISIS and Boko Harum by calling them what they are rather than what their PR flacks want you to think they are. These (and similar) groups are NOT "religious reformers" they are murderous sociopaths and the sooner that people start calling them by the correct names then the sooner their gloss will vanish.]
Terrorism
Politics
International Affairs
Islam
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
Good point, sir. Whether we call them terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic extremists, inhuman murderous sociopathic scum ... whatever ... bottom line is they're dirt bags who are bastardizing Islam, their religion, to justify the murders they carry out.
I see it as being politically correct when we don't use some form of the word Islam in their description, because they are doing their evil deeds in the name of Islam. But, I admit I could be wrong about that. They're murderers. That much is certain.
I see it as being politically correct when we don't use some form of the word Islam in their description, because they are doing their evil deeds in the name of Islam. But, I admit I could be wrong about that. They're murderers. That much is certain.
(6)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
It is all encompassing. It is first and foremost a political system incorporating sharia law justice, that uses religion [along with intimidation, violence and fear] as a vehicle to spread itself and gain new members. Once in, you are not allowed to leave. Those apostates who leave are marked for death. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a culture, but rather an intolerant cult that celebrates death and martyrdom.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Yes it is and if anyone can't see that then they are blind to the things going on in our world. Sure there are other types of terrorism going on in our world today but when the shooters/terrorists invoke islam and that they came from and were financed by known islamist terrorist people/areas then how could you not see it??? I don't think you're legimitimatizing them by calling a spade a spade!!!!! Send our Gitmo detainees back to Yemen, what a joke!!
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Ted Mc Interesting argument of how to incorporate IO into the campaign. Given that we've already committed to a "global war on terror" maybe flatly calling anyone willing to kill groups of civilians to inspire fear in order to leverage political decisions should just be called 'terrorists.' Regardless of any other trappings.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
A bunch of thugs that have twisted the Quran and the muslim religion to suite their needs.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; If there was ONLY ONE version of Sharia, then your position would make sense.
There isn't.
"Islam" CAN be translated into "total submission to Allah" but the more accurate translation is "acting according to your proper nature". A stone is "Islam" in and of itself.
You might also take a look at those people who want to impose "God's Law" (as set forth in 'The Bible') before you start condemning "God's Law" (as set forth in the Qu'ran). All "Christians" follow the Ten Commandments - including the "Christians" who kill doctors because the doctors perform abortions and the "Christians" who attack Sikhs because they don't know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
Should we eliminate all Christians (or even Christianity) because all Christians follow the Ten Commandments?
[ASIDE - MOST Christians don't follow ALL of God's laws otherwise there would be frequent bombings of factories which produce Cotton/Poly shirts and around 25% of all married people in America would be being stoned to death as adulterers.]
A primarily nomadic people have no facilities for incarceration so for a version of "God's Law" to seek to impose jail time for offences would be laughed out of town within days.
I didn't say that 99.5% of the world's Muslim population didn't live in any particular country (or set of countries) and you know it. Deliberate distortion of statement made by others is NOT exactly an exalted form of debate and more properly belongs to the Donald Trumps of the world.
What I said was that 99.5% of the world's Muslims did not live in Wahhabist countries.
As you are well aware, it is the Wahhabist form of Islam that is the dangerous one that is spawning the terrorists.
PS - The last public execution in the US was on 14 AUG 36 and around 20,000 "Good Christians": turned out to watch it.
There isn't.
"Islam" CAN be translated into "total submission to Allah" but the more accurate translation is "acting according to your proper nature". A stone is "Islam" in and of itself.
You might also take a look at those people who want to impose "God's Law" (as set forth in 'The Bible') before you start condemning "God's Law" (as set forth in the Qu'ran). All "Christians" follow the Ten Commandments - including the "Christians" who kill doctors because the doctors perform abortions and the "Christians" who attack Sikhs because they don't know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
Should we eliminate all Christians (or even Christianity) because all Christians follow the Ten Commandments?
[ASIDE - MOST Christians don't follow ALL of God's laws otherwise there would be frequent bombings of factories which produce Cotton/Poly shirts and around 25% of all married people in America would be being stoned to death as adulterers.]
A primarily nomadic people have no facilities for incarceration so for a version of "God's Law" to seek to impose jail time for offences would be laughed out of town within days.
I didn't say that 99.5% of the world's Muslim population didn't live in any particular country (or set of countries) and you know it. Deliberate distortion of statement made by others is NOT exactly an exalted form of debate and more properly belongs to the Donald Trumps of the world.
What I said was that 99.5% of the world's Muslims did not live in Wahhabist countries.
As you are well aware, it is the Wahhabist form of Islam that is the dangerous one that is spawning the terrorists.
PS - The last public execution in the US was on 14 AUG 36 and around 20,000 "Good Christians": turned out to watch it.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
COL Ted Mc As far as I know, every derivative of Sharia includes the barbaric punishments. Which version doesn't?
Why would we eliminate all Christians for following the Ten Commandments? Last time I checked, the Ten Commandments weren't commanding Christians to murder non-believers or treat them badly like the Quran commands Muslims to do. And even if it did, I don't see Christian terrorists running amok all over the world murdering innocents like Muslim terrorists are in the name of Islam, so I think your attempt to equate Christians to Muslims is flawed.
And I never said you said that about 95.5% of Muslims. What I said you said, which you did, was that 95.5% of the world's Muslims have moved on from barbaric practices. The point I was trying to make was that if the majority of Muslims still live in countries that practice Sharia, then the majority of Muslims have not moved on from barbaric practices because Sharia includes barbaric punishments.
Regarding the last public execution in the US, 1936 was 80 years ago, so I'm not following how that is relevant to today.
Why would we eliminate all Christians for following the Ten Commandments? Last time I checked, the Ten Commandments weren't commanding Christians to murder non-believers or treat them badly like the Quran commands Muslims to do. And even if it did, I don't see Christian terrorists running amok all over the world murdering innocents like Muslim terrorists are in the name of Islam, so I think your attempt to equate Christians to Muslims is flawed.
And I never said you said that about 95.5% of Muslims. What I said you said, which you did, was that 95.5% of the world's Muslims have moved on from barbaric practices. The point I was trying to make was that if the majority of Muslims still live in countries that practice Sharia, then the majority of Muslims have not moved on from barbaric practices because Sharia includes barbaric punishments.
Regarding the last public execution in the US, 1936 was 80 years ago, so I'm not following how that is relevant to today.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; Since your position has solidified on various shadings of "That's different.", there is no further point in continuing it.
As I see it, you will continue to believe what you are told you should be believing and i will continue to try and find out facts directly for myself so that I can decide independently what I believe "the facts" are.
I may err, but the fact that my world continues to expand rather than remain static (or, worse yet, shrink) is the only consolation that I have for my errors - which are, in any case, MY errors and not the errors of others that I have been told I must accept uncritically or else risk losing my immortal soul.
As I see it, you will continue to believe what you are told you should be believing and i will continue to try and find out facts directly for myself so that I can decide independently what I believe "the facts" are.
I may err, but the fact that my world continues to expand rather than remain static (or, worse yet, shrink) is the only consolation that I have for my errors - which are, in any case, MY errors and not the errors of others that I have been told I must accept uncritically or else risk losing my immortal soul.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
COL Ted Mc Fair enough, Ted. I actually hope I turn out to be wrong regarding mainstream Muslims, but so far I've seen no evidence of that.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Ted Mc and CW5 (Join to see) I agree they are THUGS who use and twist the word Islam to further their own goals of gaining power and becoming wealthy. It is a positive step to not give them legitimacy by using terms which reinforce them.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; Calling ISIS "Thugs" insults the "Thuggee".
And I'd be most appreciative if the media would stop referring to the killings conducted by these murderous sociopaths as "executions". They are NOT "executions" they are, quite simply, MURDERS.
And I'd be most appreciative if the media would stop referring to the killings conducted by these murderous sociopaths as "executions". They are NOT "executions" they are, quite simply, MURDERS.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - I could come up with some other names for them but they are not allowed here on RP.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; You mean we aren't allowed to say "murderous sociopaths who belong to a death cult dedicated to killing in excess of 99.99999% of the world's population"?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I am not sure the difference between radical islam and islamist terrorist.
I don't care what we call it. Calling it like it is just seems to make sense to me. These terrorists get their ideology from recognized islamic leaders. Whether it is true islam or not, does it really matter? They think it is real and the are prepared to kill and die for it.
If it is not true islam, why are the islamic leaders of the world silent, or very nearly silent (words not action), on the matter?
The vast majority of muslims are decent people trying to live in a difficult world with a significant lack of spiritual leadership.
I don't care what we call it. Calling it like it is just seems to make sense to me. These terrorists get their ideology from recognized islamic leaders. Whether it is true islam or not, does it really matter? They think it is real and the are prepared to kill and die for it.
If it is not true islam, why are the islamic leaders of the world silent, or very nearly silent (words not action), on the matter?
The vast majority of muslims are decent people trying to live in a difficult world with a significant lack of spiritual leadership.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Mr. Steddum; What you are actually seeing is a lot of "non-coverage" of the positions of the "leading" Muslims. [Quite frankly, you can't sell advertising with headlines like "Cleveland Muslim Leader Condemns Terrorism" but you CAN sell advertising with headlines like "(incredibly obscure) Muslim Leader in (incredibly obscure place) Supports Terrorism".
The other thing that you have to remember is that Islam is a non-hierarchic religion and doesn't have any OFFICIAL leaders. So "Imam Condemns Terrorism" simply doesn't have the same weight as "Pope Condemns Terrorism".
PS - You also have to remember that the "islamic leaders of the world" have one hell of a lot higher chance of being murdered for speaking out than someone like the President of the United States of America (or even a CW4 at Fort Rucker) does.
The other thing that you have to remember is that Islam is a non-hierarchic religion and doesn't have any OFFICIAL leaders. So "Imam Condemns Terrorism" simply doesn't have the same weight as "Pope Condemns Terrorism".
PS - You also have to remember that the "islamic leaders of the world" have one hell of a lot higher chance of being murdered for speaking out than someone like the President of the United States of America (or even a CW4 at Fort Rucker) does.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think that, MAYBE, if you called it Islamic terrorism, and the government called it that, that the moderates would be forced into taking their religion back. If the moderates truly believe that this is just a radical faction of Islam. they need to reclaim their religion and prove to the rest of the world that this is an anomaly, until that happens, Islam will forever be associate with terrorism
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW2 Ernest Krutzsch - Mr. Krutzsch; Whether or not "Islam" is associated with "terrorism" would really depend on where in the world you live and when you lived there. For a long time the Spanish associated the (Catholic) Basques with terrorism and in the late 1940s the British associated the (Jewish) Israelis with terrorism and for an even longer time the British and the Irish associated the (Catholic) Irish and the (Protestant) Irish with terrorism. We won't even go into "The Taming of the West" or what happened in Central and South America.
People associate things with whatever is getting the most publicity and/or what they think they know is happening. That is why 30% of the Republicans (and 20% of the Democrats supported bombing Agrabah [a fictional city from the Disney studio's latest production of "Aladdin"].
People associate things with whatever is getting the most publicity and/or what they think they know is happening. That is why 30% of the Republicans (and 20% of the Democrats supported bombing Agrabah [a fictional city from the Disney studio's latest production of "Aladdin"].
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
TSgt Kenneth Ellis - Sergeant; "Orthodox" what?
I don't agree with them, but THEY see (or at least portray) Islam as being under attack. That means that, TO THEM, the portions of the Qu'ran which were written whilst Islam was under attack are the operative sections.
When you have people arguing that Islam should be made illegal and that all Muslims should be sent to concentration camps, you can see how the propagandists could make out a case that Islam is under attack.
YOU may not believe that it is (after all it isn't your religion that is being talked about being banned and you don't belong to the group being considered for being sent to the concentration camps) but THEY might well believe it (after all it is their religion that is being talked about being banned and they belong to the group that is being considered for being sent to the concentration camps).
I don't agree with them, but THEY see (or at least portray) Islam as being under attack. That means that, TO THEM, the portions of the Qu'ran which were written whilst Islam was under attack are the operative sections.
When you have people arguing that Islam should be made illegal and that all Muslims should be sent to concentration camps, you can see how the propagandists could make out a case that Islam is under attack.
YOU may not believe that it is (after all it isn't your religion that is being talked about being banned and you don't belong to the group being considered for being sent to the concentration camps) but THEY might well believe it (after all it is their religion that is being talked about being banned and they belong to the group that is being considered for being sent to the concentration camps).
(0)
(0)
TSgt Kenneth Ellis
Sorry I googled the would. I misunderstood its meaning. They are calling for a reformation. But I don't think you can take Mohamed out of the Quran.
(0)
(0)
Sir, I don't care what we call them, as long as we eliminate the very real threat.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt (Join to see) - Sergeant; There is no doubt that the threat is "real".
The question is "Is the threat significant?". If the threat is "significant", exactly HOW "significant" is it?
You stand a better chance of being killed by falling out of bed than you do of being killed by a "terrorist". Does that mean that we should ban beds?
Eliminating the threat of terrorism is an admirable goal (unachievable, but admirable) but should that be done through eliminating the very things that America stands for (whether "reality" equals "theory" is irrelevant)?
The question is "Is the threat significant?". If the threat is "significant", exactly HOW "significant" is it?
You stand a better chance of being killed by falling out of bed than you do of being killed by a "terrorist". Does that mean that we should ban beds?
Eliminating the threat of terrorism is an admirable goal (unachievable, but admirable) but should that be done through eliminating the very things that America stands for (whether "reality" equals "theory" is irrelevant)?
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Colonel, I believe the threat is significant. Our borders are porous, and I have no confidence that folks that fly here and overstay their Visa, are being checked on. We probably have hundreds if not thousands of terrorists in our country now. I hope I am wrong, but I think the threat is higher than the chance of being killed falling out of bed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It's based on a literal interpretation of religious texts without accounting for context. If you applied the same logic to the Bible you would believe that mixing cotton with another fabric was a sin, that women were subservient to men and that gay people should be killed. If someone insisted on a literal interpretation of the Bible and used that to justify terror... would they be a Radical Christian?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; When the messenger becomes more important than the message things tend to get messy.
Fortunately, as far as the "Christian Right" is concerned, "The Pope" doesn't speak for any "Christian" denomination so his words can be safely ignored by any "Real True Christian".
Fortunately, as far as the "Christian Right" is concerned, "The Pope" doesn't speak for any "Christian" denomination so his words can be safely ignored by any "Real True Christian".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - Quite to the contrary it appears to me that conservative Catholics have been embraced by the Christian right and that means the Pope should also carry some weight within the Christian right. Not as much as a James Dobson, however some considerable weight none the less.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; You are speaking about the "Christian Right Center" faction. Once you get off into the "Evangelical" faction then you have to deal with the "fact" that "the 'Roman Catholic' so-called 'Church'" simply isn't "Christian".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - Within Evangelical circles that is true, however the political Christian right seems far more pragmatic. When it comes to fighting against a women's right to control what happens with her body or efforts by secularists to reduce government support for religion or endorsement of religious views... they are Christian enough.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google