What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

Seahawk said:
Good gotcha there Thing. My whole post was about radicals, but yep, I forgot to put radical in the last sentence.

Great gotcha game there, you win. Go pat yourself on the pat for being a hypocrite when it come to gotcha bullshit. I"m really, you couldn't tell what I was talking about because of a typo. LOL
Click to expand...

Thing1 said:
And way to ignore this, fucking imbecile.
Click to expand...

I did? Post 56. You know, the post before your post.

:rofl2:
 
tsuke said:
most no? some yes.

has some form of terorrism been around sure. but this level? no. Didnt you just make the case that we killed so many of them they were almost defeated?

At the end of the day the goal is to divide the muslim community. Moderates vs terrorists so the moderates give us intel. We tried the carrot it is not their fault etc etc. and attack after attack after attack after attack still happen. 15 years of that is enough. It is time for the stick now to see if that divides them. Clearly the carrot has had little to no effect.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with getting into mind games with these Islamist bastards is the risk of getting played by them. For example, maybe they agree with you that their biggest risk is the greater Muslim community rising up against them. So, what do they do?

They get us to think that using the term radical Islam would give them a big recruiting bonanza. When the reality is they fear it might unite the Muslim community against them. That's why it's so critical to understand their ideology. If you don't, you risk falling for their propaganda.

I suspect the current administration and much of our security apparatus is weak on the ideological end. Their tendency to lump all terrorists into a single category like 'radical extremists' would seem to indicate they don't understand the threat like they should.
 
it cannot be a good idea to twist language as to deceive oneself or others. It's an innately poor choice to make a poor choice with wording
 
anatta said:
it cannot be a good idea to twist language as to deceive oneself or others. It's an innately poor choice to make a poor choice with wording
Click to expand...

It's not really twisting the language. Groups like ISIS want to be what Islam is about - they want that association.

Why should we play into that? They're criminals & villains; they're not part of any larger group, unless we want to make them that way. I have brought up the KKK for comparison, but I wouldn't call the KKK Christians or Christian extremists, personally. They're just hate-mongers trying to co-opt a religion for their own agenda. Why go along w/ them?
 
Thing1 said:
I was posting at the same time. I wouldn't take it back, because your response was lame.

But congrats. You finally won something on this thread. Hang on tight to it.
Click to expand...

Just like your proud gotcha because I made a typo? Hold on dearly to that one.
 
Hillary Clinton is coming under fire for a tweet last year in which she claimed Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

However, on Monday the presumptive Democratic nominee acknowledged the threat of “radical Islamism,” one day after an apparent Islamic State sympathizer killed 49 people and wounded dozens of others inside an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.

“I have clearly said we have terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either but that's not the point.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork
 
Hillary Clinton is coming under fire for a tweet last year in which she claimed Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
Click to expand...
can you imagine the firestorm if Trump had said this? unbelievable
 
Seahawk said:
Hillary Clinton is coming under fire for a tweet last year in which she claimed Muslims have “nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

However, on Monday the presumptive Democratic nominee acknowledged the threat of “radical Islamism,” one day after an apparent Islamic State sympathizer killed 49 people and wounded dozens of others inside an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.

“I have clearly said we have terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show.

“To me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, they mean the same thing. I'm happy to say either but that's not the point.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ntcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork
Click to expand...
such drivel .WTF is she even saying? that there are no Islamic terrorists??
 
Thing1 said:
Do you even know what a typo is?

That wasn't a typo.
Click to expand...

Skipping a word is a typographical error. People do it all the time, for example, "Are you going to store". They clearly mean "the" but accidentally excluded the word, because most likely they are typing too fast. Repeated words are also typographical errors.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not really twisting the language. Groups like ISIS want to be what Islam is about - they want that association.

Why should we play into that? They're criminals & villains; they're not part of any larger group, unless we want to make them that way. I have brought up the KKK for comparison, but I wouldn't call the KKK Christians or Christian extremists, personally. They're just hate-mongers trying to co-opt a religion for their own agenda. Why go along w/ them?
Click to expand...

Why engage in rhetorical somersaults just to try and prove a point? You're treating it like a debate board. ISIS is many things, non-Islamic isn't one of them.

Has it occured to you [or Hillary/Obama] just how ridiculous that must sound to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups? The non-Islamic Caliphate in Iraq?

ISIS is Islamic. It's not, or shouldn't be, a national security priority to protect the image of Islam. That's up to Muslims.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Why engage in rhetorical somersaults just to try and prove a point? You're treating it like a debate board. ISIS is many things, non-Islamic isn't one of them.

Has it occured to you [or Hillary/Obama] just how ridiculous that must sound to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups? The non-Islamic Caliphate in Iraq?

ISIS is Islamic. It's not, or shouldn't be, a national security priority to protect the image of Islam. That's up to Muslims.
Click to expand...

It's not somersaults. Don't exaggerate.

You may or may not be helping their cause. I haven't seen one of you guys yet present a compelling argument that you're not. It's not about "protecting the image of Islam," or offending anyone. It's about legitimizing their cause and actually helping their cause.

A lot of Muslims say they are NOT Islamic - that they're perverting the religion. Why not listen to them?
 
Thing1 said:
It's not somersaults. Don't exaggerate.

You may or may not be helping their cause. I haven't seen one of you guys yet present a compelling argument that you're not. It's not about "protecting the image of Islam," or offending anyone. It's about legitimizing their cause and actually helping their cause.

A lot of Muslims say they are NOT Islamic - that they're perverting the religion. Why not listen to them?
Click to expand...

Why haven't you said calling Christians, Christian terrorists is helping or legitimizing their cause?
 
I mean, just to get Yurt to shut up and get on the actual topic of the OP: calling groups like the KKK Christian terrorists helps their cause. Even though their cause isn't a holy war w/ the West.

There ya go, Yurt. Can you come around to the topic of the thread now? Or are there other groups you'd like me to do this for prior to actually discussing that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top