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
0
0
0
0
0
0
I have to agree with Obama (FUCK I HATE THAT) but there is nothing Radical about them. The muslim islam culture IS Radical their Ideas are Radical it's in their manuals all you have to do is read them. But can we please stop calling this wacked CULTURE a Religion.
(0)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
COL Ted Mc - No Sir. the real difference is ABROGATION. The jones quotes were from the Old Testament which was abrogated by the new testament. Harsher more violent giving way to more peaceful and compassionate teachings. AND quite the opposite in the quran as the more peaceful part of mohamed's dictate is at the front of the book and is abrogated by the later part of mohamed's dictate that is also WAY more violent. But even so I can't think of anywhere in the Bible that people are to commit suicide quite the contrary actually. I guess I need to do some study on the jones cult.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Charles Griffith - Spec; If you would look at the historical context, the Old Testament (which no matter how you slice it is STILL a part of the "Christian Bible") was written during the time that the Hebrews were conducting their campaigns of duplicity, conquest, and genocide while the New Testament was written during the time when the Christians were a tiny and powerless sect that could be obliterated by the powerful ("Heathen") state.
The "peaceful" part of the Qu'ran was written during the period when the Muslims were a tiny and powerless sect that could be obliterated by the powerful ("Heathen") state while the "warlike" part was written during the period then the Muslims were actually under attack by the powerful ("Heathen") state and were fighting for their lives.
Regardless of what "belief system" you are living under, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to preach peace and non-resistance when you are facing an active campaign to obliterate you. The Jews of Europe learned that lesson well.
The "peaceful" part of the Qu'ran was written during the period when the Muslims were a tiny and powerless sect that could be obliterated by the powerful ("Heathen") state while the "warlike" part was written during the period then the Muslims were actually under attack by the powerful ("Heathen") state and were fighting for their lives.
Regardless of what "belief system" you are living under, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to preach peace and non-resistance when you are facing an active campaign to obliterate you. The Jews of Europe learned that lesson well.
(0)
(0)
SPC Charles Griffith
COL Ted Mc - Sir. you make valid points but I think you are missing my point concerning abrogation. What part of the book is followed, Generally it is that latter as the preceding is usually abrogated by the latter. My point was and is that if one is to follow the islamic faith one is directed to convert or kill, and jihad is an acceptably form of conquest. The supposed goal of islam is to control the WORLD, it is the only way they claim peace can happen. Those of us who are paying attention and understand what is happening know that even if islam managed to conquer the world they would just start fighting amongst the sects sunni Versus shia. It is a fatally flawed doctrine. Kind of like communism it looks good on paper but it's just not how people are wired. The only way to have lasting peace is to rid the world of WANT for as long as someone want's something they will do insanely stupid things to get what ever it is. And how likely is that to happen???
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Charles Griffith - Spec; I will agree that CURRENTLY the more peaceful portions of "The Bible" are the portions that are followed. Historically it is the opposite.
The Qu'ran states clearly that there can be no compulsion in religion and that the "People of the Book" are to be allowed to live in peace UNLESS they attack Muslims/Islam. Most Muslims follow that dictum. SOME don't.
However, "The Bible" contains dicta that require "Christians" (and Jews) to actively kill non-Christians (and non-Jews). MOST Christians (and MOST Jews) DON'T follow that dicta. SOME do.
The Qu'ran does not say for Muslims to conquer the world, it does say that Islam will ultimately prevail as it is the "one true religion". "The Bible" says that Christianity is the "one true religion" and will ultimately prevail.
Your points about "ridding the world of want" are both excellent. A precursor step would be to restore "hope of improvement" to the world. As this is the first generation of Americans who do not have a reasonable expectation of having a better life than their parents, the US is starting to experience the loss of hope that the majority of the people in the world have felt for centuries. Where that will lead I shudder to think.
The Qu'ran states clearly that there can be no compulsion in religion and that the "People of the Book" are to be allowed to live in peace UNLESS they attack Muslims/Islam. Most Muslims follow that dictum. SOME don't.
However, "The Bible" contains dicta that require "Christians" (and Jews) to actively kill non-Christians (and non-Jews). MOST Christians (and MOST Jews) DON'T follow that dicta. SOME do.
The Qu'ran does not say for Muslims to conquer the world, it does say that Islam will ultimately prevail as it is the "one true religion". "The Bible" says that Christianity is the "one true religion" and will ultimately prevail.
Your points about "ridding the world of want" are both excellent. A precursor step would be to restore "hope of improvement" to the world. As this is the first generation of Americans who do not have a reasonable expectation of having a better life than their parents, the US is starting to experience the loss of hope that the majority of the people in the world have felt for centuries. Where that will lead I shudder to think.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sorry to the apologists (snicker) But the followers of islam are a cult. And a murderous one at that. Need proof? Read their book and look at history. Sheer numbers do not make them legitimate or right.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt (Verify To See) - Sergeant; i am someone who can go into any bookstore in town (including the Christian Supply ones) and find that BOTH the Ole and the New Testaments are bound together in a volume labelled "The Bible".
If people don't want "The Old Testament" to be regarded as a part of Christianity, then they should be moving to have it officially removed from "The Bible".
If people want to use "The Old Testament" as a part of Christianity, then they should stop saying that it is no longer applicable.
You can't really have it both ways - regardless of what you are told you are supposed to be believing.
If people don't want "The Old Testament" to be regarded as a part of Christianity, then they should be moving to have it officially removed from "The Bible".
If people want to use "The Old Testament" as a part of Christianity, then they should stop saying that it is no longer applicable.
You can't really have it both ways - regardless of what you are told you are supposed to be believing.
(0)
(0)
SFC Pete Kain
COL Ted Mc - If that is your belief more power to you. My belief is that you are wrong. I have no need to defend Christianity. I still believe islam is a cult. Your attacks are strawman arguments at best.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; The Ottoman Empire was OFFICIALLY dissolved in 1923. However the "Islamic" government of the country was ousted in 1908. From 1908 onward the government of what is now Turkey has been a secular one. The Armenian killings commenced in 1915.
I do apologize for the sloppy terminology, but after 1908 the Ottoman Empire ( by whatever name) no longer had an "Islamic" government (even though the majority of the population was Muslim).
If you want to say "The secular government of the Ottoman Empire (under the "Young Turks") was responsible for the deaths of between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenians." I won't disagree with that. However the same statement substituting the word "Islamic" for the word "secular" is false.
Face it, the majority of the American people at the time of "The Opening of the West" were "Christian" but no one blames the slaughter of America's indigenous population on the "Christian Government" of America - do they?
I do apologize for the sloppy terminology, but after 1908 the Ottoman Empire ( by whatever name) no longer had an "Islamic" government (even though the majority of the population was Muslim).
If you want to say "The secular government of the Ottoman Empire (under the "Young Turks") was responsible for the deaths of between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenians." I won't disagree with that. However the same statement substituting the word "Islamic" for the word "secular" is false.
Face it, the majority of the American people at the time of "The Opening of the West" were "Christian" but no one blames the slaughter of America's indigenous population on the "Christian Government" of America - do they?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Pete Kain - Sergeant; I didn't ask you to "defend Christianity" when I gave you a responsive reply to your question.
Now, would you like to tell me how someone "defending Christianity" by using a part of "The Bible" that they claim does not form a part of "Christianity" isn't being intellectually dishonest?
Sgt (Verify To See) - Sergeant; I don't see why I should conflate "disagreement" with "disrespect" - so I won't. You, of course, are free to take whatever course you believe is appropriate.
I don't ask you to "defend Christianity" - although I do ask you to recognize BOTH the good and bad behaviours that have been taken "in the Name of God/Christ".
I recognize that BOTH good and bad behaviours have taken place "in the Name of God/Christ", "In the Name of Allah", "in the Name of Yahweh", and in the name of just about anything else of political consequence that you can think of.
I also recognize that when "bad" behaviours are committed "in the Name of God/Christ", "In the Name of Allah", "in the Name of Yahweh", and in the name of just about anything else of political consequence that you can think of then the underlying "good" message is being ignored/perverted.
I also recognize that there are those whose belief/behaviour pattern is driven by the primitive (tribal) fundamental axiom "THEY aren't US, so THEY are EVIL". In my opinion, those "tribal thinkers" are the greatest threat to civilization REGARDLESS of which "tribe" they claim to belong to.
Now, would you like to tell me how someone "defending Christianity" by using a part of "The Bible" that they claim does not form a part of "Christianity" isn't being intellectually dishonest?
Sgt (Verify To See) - Sergeant; I don't see why I should conflate "disagreement" with "disrespect" - so I won't. You, of course, are free to take whatever course you believe is appropriate.
I don't ask you to "defend Christianity" - although I do ask you to recognize BOTH the good and bad behaviours that have been taken "in the Name of God/Christ".
I recognize that BOTH good and bad behaviours have taken place "in the Name of God/Christ", "In the Name of Allah", "in the Name of Yahweh", and in the name of just about anything else of political consequence that you can think of.
I also recognize that when "bad" behaviours are committed "in the Name of God/Christ", "In the Name of Allah", "in the Name of Yahweh", and in the name of just about anything else of political consequence that you can think of then the underlying "good" message is being ignored/perverted.
I also recognize that there are those whose belief/behaviour pattern is driven by the primitive (tribal) fundamental axiom "THEY aren't US, so THEY are EVIL". In my opinion, those "tribal thinkers" are the greatest threat to civilization REGARDLESS of which "tribe" they claim to belong to.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google