Liberal AP refuses to use the word "Islamic terror."

Althea said:
ISIS isn't doing what they do in the name of Allah....their claims notwithstanding. So we're drawing the line at how many denounce the actions of the few? Because the vast majority of muslims denounce the terror acts of the few.

What about the KKK? Radical Christian terrorists?
Click to expand...

Really?Are you aware 90% of Sudis support stoning? 99% of Afghans support Sharia law. 78% of British Muslims think the Danish cartoonist should be punished.

Does that sound like denouncing?
 
Irish said:
Really?Are you aware 90% of Sudis support stoning? 99% of Afghans support Sharia law. 78% of British Muslims think the Danish cartoonist should be punished.

Does that sound like denouncing?
Click to expand...

How does calling them Islamist terrorists stop them from being Islamist terrorists?
 
Althea said:
ISIS isn't doing what they do in the name of Allah....their claims notwithstanding. So we're drawing the line at how many denounce the actions of the few? Because the vast majority of muslims denounce the terror acts of the few.

What about the KKK? Radical Christian terrorists?
Click to expand...

The term is already in use. Didn't the left try mightily to make McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Even though his religious views were questionable, at best.

Al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, on the other hand, was 100% Muslim. In addition, he was an Islamic scholar. Yet you imply that you know Islam better than him.

See, the difference between people like myself and people on the left is I allow the facts to speak for themselves: the facts in this instance strongly suggest that al-Baghdadi knows Islam. Actually, it would be intellectually arrogant on my part to say something like 'al-Baghdadi doesn't know Islam---his claims notwithstanding'.

The left allows their ideological commitments [to multiculturalism and PC] to trump the facts when it comes to Islam and Islamic terrorism. Filtered through their ideological prism, Islam is no different than any other world religion, 99% of its practitioners are peaceful---facts to the contrary, be damned.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
I thought Europeans and our liberal secularists prided themselves and their respective countries as being post-Christian lol. It would be more accurate to say 'the post-Christians invaded Iraq'.

I always feel like I'm having to explain the obvious in these debates.

Islamic terrorists act on singularly religious principles: if you listen to them they will tell you. Without Islam, there would be no jihad or jihadists.

In contrast, 'Christian invaders' conjures the image of the Crusaders. Even though they died out centuries ago. Ironically, with all the handwringing over us enabling ISIS propaganda, ISIS would like nothing better than for the West to resuscitate the term Crusader.

In short, there's a distinction between actors acting on purely religious principles and actors or nations who happen to be this or that religion.

ISIS is Islamic.
Click to expand...

Those who object to being colonised and murdered tend to hit back, in the real world. In Europe they find political excuses, mostly, in America something or other in the Constitution, and in the Muslim World, religion. If you know any history the reasons are easy to see - like the Whole Middle East's being denied politics for a hundred years or so by 'the West' - but your sort prefer to find excuses to hate everyone, as you know.
 
Last edited:
Irish said:
Really?Are you aware 90% of Sudis support stoning? 99% of Afghans support Sharia law. 78% of British Muslims think the Danish cartoonist should be punished.

Does that sound like denouncing?
Click to expand...
Why are you conflating societal laws with terrorism against other cultures?

To be clear...Christians were terrorists during the Crusades....correct?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The term is already in use. Didn't the left try mightily to make McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Even though his religious views were questionable, at best.

Al-Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS, on the other hand, was 100% Muslim. In addition, he was an Islamic scholar. Yet you imply that you know Islam better than him.

See, the difference between people like myself and people on the left is I allow the facts to speak for themselves: the facts in this instance strongly suggest that al-Baghdadi knows Islam. Actually, it would be intellectually arrogant on my part to say something like 'al-Baghdadi doesn't know Islam---his claims notwithstanding'.

The left allows their ideological commitments [to multiculturalism and PC] to trump the facts when it comes to Islam and Islamic terrorism. Filtered through their ideological prism, Islam is no different than any other world religion, 99% of its practitioners are peaceful---facts to the contrary, be damned.
Click to expand...
Al Baghdadi 'knows' Islam?

Just like the inbred Westboro Baptist Church 'knows' Christianity?
 
Althea said:
Al Baghdadi 'knows' Islam?

Just like the inbred Westboro Baptist Church 'knows' Christianity?
Click to expand...

Oh, much better actually. Al-Baghdadi held several degrees in Islamic study, including a Ph.D.

So by what authority do you claim to know more about Islam than him? Why would young Muslims listen to you and not him?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Oh, much better actually. Al-Baghdadi held several degrees in Islamic study, including a Ph.D.

So by what authority do you claim to know more about Islam than him? Why would young Muslims listen to you and not him?
Click to expand...


Or you, rather than what the vast majority of Muslims obviously believe? Nazis see other nazis everywhere. let's face it. Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate!
 
Irish said:
The AP is has joined Obama in refusing to utter the words Islamic terror, instead calling the attacks in the Philippines "Abu Sayyaf extremists." :rofl2:

So the guy is Islamic, he's killing in the name of Alah, he's part of an Islamic terror organization, but we can't actually use the words Islamic Extremism when we talk about what they do? See how retarded libtardism is?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-blast-leaves-10-dead-several-wounded-market-170420169.html
Click to expand...

Let's say Obama uses that term the very next time he speaks. You think there will be a sharply-indrawn breath throughout the Muslim world and they'll all be chastened enough to lay down their weapons immediately?

What SPECIFICALLY do you think will occur? And I'm not talking about the non-sequiturs and fluff that passes for intelligence on right-wing websites. Crap like "if you can't even identify the enemy correctly how can you defeat it blah blah blah...."
 
Irish said:
The AP is has joined Obama in refusing to utter the words Islamic terror, instead calling the attacks in the Philippines "Abu Sayyaf extremists." :rofl2:

So the guy is Islamic, he's killing in the name of Alah, he's part of an Islamic terror organization, but we can't actually use the words Islamic Extremism when we talk about what they do? See how retarded libtardism is?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-blast-leaves-10-dead-several-wounded-market-170420169.html
Click to expand...

You want them to say 'agua' and they say 'water' and it pisses you off.
 
christiefan915 said:
Let's say Obama uses that term the very next time he speaks. You think there will be a sharply-indrawn breath throughout the Muslim world and they'll all be chastened enough to lay down their weapons immediately?

What SPECIFICALLY do you think will occur? And I'm not talking about the non-sequiturs and fluff that passes for intelligence on right-wing websites. Crap like "if you can't even identify the enemy correctly how can you defeat it blah blah blah...."
Click to expand...

The left scoffs at that. But could you imagine a 1940's government policy to not name Nazis? And calling them Germanic extremists instead? It's ridiculous.

The justification for not saying radical Islam is dragging Islam into it would give the radical extremists a propaganda coup insofar as they want a religious war.

Well, News Flash: They are bringing *their* religious war to us regardless of which ridiculous euphemism we choose to assign to it.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The left scoffs at that. But could you imagine a 1940's government policy to not name Nazis? And calling them Germanic extremists instead? It's ridiculous.

The justification for not saying radical Islam is dragging Islam into it would give the radical extremists a propaganda coup insofar as they want a religious war.

Well, News Flash: They are bringing *their* religious war to us regardless of which ridiculous euphemism we choose to assign to it.
Click to expand...
I was listening to a bit of an interview by an NSA Middle East Analyst while driving.
He basically said using religion to search/analyze was prohibited (or ignored) - by the Obama adm. so they were "searching in the dark"

I didn't hear much more, but the gist was they were not using full intelligence gathering, because of political correctness
towards Islam.
 
anatta said:
I was listening to a bit of an interview by an NSA Middle East Analyst while driving.
He basically said using religion to search/analyze was prohibited (or ignored) - by the Obama adm. so they were "searching in the dark"

I didn't hear much more, but the gist was they were not using full intelligence gathering, because of political correctness
towards Islam.
Click to expand...

Yup, I think it was in Obama's first term they purged the FBI training manuals of certain religious references---even as we are engaged with 'radical extremists' who are guided by religious principles that have nothing to do with Catholicism.

It's insane. Literally.
 
Irish said:
The AP is has joined Obama in refusing to utter the words Islamic terror, instead calling the attacks in the Philippines "Abu Sayyaf extremists." :rofl2:

So the guy is Islamic, he's killing in the name of Alah, he's part of an Islamic terror organization, but we can't actually use the words Islamic Extremism when we talk about what they do? See how retarded libtardism is?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-blast-leaves-10-dead-several-wounded-market-170420169.html
Click to expand...

Who is we?? No is telling you to use/not use anything..............:palm::palm:
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Yup, I think it was in Obama's first term they purged the FBI training manuals of certain religious references---even as we are engaged with 'radical extremists' who are guided by religious principles that have nothing to do with Catholicism.

It's insane. Literally.
Click to expand...
forgot that one. How are we supposed to decry 'radical Islam' if we can't even use the term?
 
iolo said:
Those who object to being colonised and murdered tend to hit back, in the real world. In Europe they find political excuses, mostly, in America something or other in the Constitution, and in the Muslim World, religion. If you know any history the reasons are easy to see - like the Whole Middle East's being denied politics for a hundred years or so by 'the West' - but your sort prefer to find excuses to hate everyone, as you know.
Click to expand...

As you know, there's nothing new about Islamic militancy. History traces it back to Mohammed himself. Islam nearly conquered Europe and their own empire [Ottoman] finally croaked around the turn of the last century. Had it not, these same radical Islamists would be rebelling against it.

Typical leftist who thinks the West is uniquely guilty for the ills of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top