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

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

DigitalDave said:
Maybe because we are at war with a smaller sect of people using that religion, and the last thing we want is the entire religion to think we hate them all and want to destroy them. We need their help. Especially when the rest of the Muslim world are victims to this shit as well.
Click to expand...
So stop saying Christian terrorists because you don't want the whole religion thinking we hate them.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Seahawk said:
So stop saying Christian terrorists because you don't want the whole religion thinking we hate them.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL, I don't call them Christian terrorists, unless I am pointing out how uncomfortable it makes Christians to label terrorists who claim to be Christians as Christian terrorist. You clearly make my point!
 
ISIS-Linked Militants in the Philippines Are Threatening to Behead Two More Hostages

Islamic militant group Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines is threatening to behead two more hostages, a Norwegian man and a Filipino woman, if it does not receive a ransom of 600 million pesos — almost $13 million.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that the threat follows the brutal beheading of two Canadians, Robert Hall and John Ridsdel, after their government did not meet ransom demands. Hall, 68, was killed on Tuesday, and Ridsdel, 68, was killed on April 25. The two current captives, Norwegian Kjartan Sekkingstad and Filipina Maritess Flor, were kidnapped alongside the two murdered Canadians on Sept. 21, 2015 from a marina and resort on Samal Island in Davao del Norte province.

Founded in the 1990s with al-Qaeda funding, Abu Sayyaf — meaning “bearer of the sword” in Arabic — is a radical Islamic group based in the southern Philippines that has pledged allegiance to ISIS. It is notorious for kidnapping, and was responsible for a 2004 ferry bombing that killed 116 people.

“We will upload a new video soon for our new ultimatum,” Abu Raami, the Abu Sayyaf spokesperson, told the Inquirer. “No ransom, another beheading.”

The Philippines has a no-ransom policy when it comes to dealing with criminal groups
https://www.yahoo.com/news/isis-linked-militants-philippines-threatening-042313064.html
 
DigitalDave said:
LOL, I don't call them Christian terrorists, unless I am pointing out how uncomfortable it makes Christians to label terrorists who claim to be Christians as Christian terrorist. You clearly make my point!
Click to expand...

Great, do go around and tell people to stop saying Christian terrorism or terrorists? I don't believe I made your point at all.
 
Seahawk said:
According to this source he said:

“A gun in the hands of just one Christian terrorist has resulted in the loss of life of a police veteran, father, and volunteer pastor; two civilians, injuries to five of Colorado’s brave law enforcement officers, and four innocent civilians.”

http://nationalreport.net/obama-refers-colorado-shooter-christian-terrorist-press-briefing/
Click to expand...
i'll be gawdamned..

That lying worthless piece of shit for a POTUS was saying 'Islamic terrorism" is a political talking point" 2 days ago
and he's leading the clueless Dems around by the nose.
What a hypocritical douche bag he is.

He's down here in Orlando -no doubt spreading his agenda
 
Seahawk said:
According to this source he said:

“A gun in the hands of just one Christian terrorist has resulted in the loss of life of a police veteran, father, and volunteer pastor; two civilians, injuries to five of Colorado’s brave law enforcement officers, and four innocent civilians.”

http://nationalreport.net/obama-refers-colorado-shooter-christian-terrorist-press-briefing/
Click to expand...

I'm actually a little surprised that he said that. I really didn't think he ever used that term.

I don't think he should have said that, personally. I don't think either is appropriate for extremists.

But, to me, the larger issue is one of strategy. What would ISIS want us to do? Personally, I think it helps their propaganda for a religious/holy war if we keep harping on the "Islamic" part of it. I know you don't agree. That's fine.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm actually a little surprised that he said that. I really didn't think he ever used that term.

I don't think he should have said that, personally. I don't think either is appropriate for extremists.

But, to me, the larger issue is one of strategy. What would ISIS want us to do? Personally, I think it helps their propaganda for a religious/holy war if we keep harping on the "Islamic" part of it. I know you don't agree. That's fine.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, Rana wants to upset them by calling them Daesh and seems others in the government are in agreement.

What do you propose we call them or refer to them as?
 
Seahawk said:
Interestingly, Rana wants to upset them by calling them Daesh and seems others in the government are in agreement.

What do you propose we call them or refer to them as?
Click to expand...

I'm not a strategist in that regard. I'm fine w/ calling them "terrorists."

I'm just not inclined on this one to question Obama's rhetoric on it. I don't think it's one he arrived at on his own. I think it's part of a larger strategy. I think it's why he called them the "JV", also. Other Presidents have done similar things to marginalize or minimize enemies; Bush's father famously mispronounced Saddam Hussein's name on purpose.

What does ISIS want? They want us to think they're big & scary. They want us to view them as the arbiters of Islam and the leaders of the holy war. By calling them the JV & not calling them Islamic, they're not getting that from us.

Is it the right strategy? I certainly get it. I won't claim to understand enough about ISIS to know whether it has any real effect, but I get the idea.
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

Thing1 said:
I'm not a strategist in that regard. I'm fine w/ calling them "terrorists."

I'm just not inclined on this one to question Obama's rhetoric on it. I don't think it's one he arrived at on his own. I think it's part of a larger strategy. I think it's why he called them the "JV", also. Other Presidents have done similar things to marginalize or minimize enemies; Bush's father famously mispronounced Saddam Hussein's name on purpose.

What does ISIS want? They want us to think they're big & scary. They want us to view them as the arbiters of Islam and the leaders of the holy war. By calling them the JV & not calling them Islamic, they're not getting that from us.

Is it the right strategy? I certainly get it. I won't claim to understand enough about ISIS to know whether it has any real effect, but I get the idea.
Click to expand...

You claim to know enough about them the other day.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm not a strategist in that regard. I'm fine w/ calling them "terrorists."

I'm just not inclined on this one to question Obama's rhetoric on it. I don't think it's one he arrived at on his own. I think it's part of a larger strategy. I think it's why he called them the "JV", also. Other Presidents have done similar things to marginalize or minimize enemies; Bush's father famously mispronounced Saddam Hussein's name on purpose.

What does ISIS want? They want us to think they're big & scary. They want us to view them as the arbiters of Islam and the leaders of the holy war. By calling them the JV & not calling them Islamic, they're not getting that from us.

Is it the right strategy? I certainly get it. I won't claim to understand enough about ISIS to know whether it has any real effect, but I get the idea.
Click to expand...
he called them "JV" as they were crossing the desert into Iraq. It was a major policy blunder.
He blamed it on his intelligence. But he also did not take the opportunity to strike them in that open desert while they were in convoy formation
This was no strategic brilliance - it was a gross misunderstand of how quickly AQI could grow, and it was aterrible miscalculation not to bomb them
 
anatta said:
he called them "JV" as they were crossing the desert into Iraq. It was a major policy blunder.
He blamed it on his intelligence. But he also did not take the opportunity to strike them in that open desert while they were in convoy formation
This was no strategic brilliance - it was a gross misunderstand of how quickly AQI could grow, and it was aterrible miscalculation not to bomb them
Click to expand...

You're talking about 2 different things. Calling them the "JV" has nothing to do w/ the decision to bomb or not to bomb them.
 
Seahawk said:
Great, do go around and tell people to stop saying Christian terrorism or terrorists? I don't believe I made your point at all.
Click to expand...

Nobody really gets on a pulpit to call out Christians when a Christian does it. No one of significance tells the President that he has to label them radical Christians. The fact that you are uncomfortable with the label itself proves my point about labeling Muslim terrorists this way. You can't think of a world that isn't black and white, and don't understand you're own hypocrisy.
 
Thing1 said:
You're talking about 2 different things. Calling them the "JV" has nothing to do w/ the decision to bomb or not to bomb them.
Click to expand...
the timing was sequential. Syrian territory. Obama calling them "JV" . rolling across the Iraqi desert.

Clinton Defends Obama’s ‘JV Team’ Label for ISIS

Do you believe that President Obama underestimated ISIS when he called it the JV team?” Zakaria asked. “I don’t think it’s useful to go back and re-plow old ground,” Clinton said. “I think from the perspective of what they had accomplished at that time, even though they had seized and held territory, the major focus of our government was on trying to remove Assad from power so that there could a be a resolution, a political resolution.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427355/hilllary-clinton-defends-obamas-isis-jv-label

the "seized and held territory" was in Syria, did you see the pic I posted of their convoys to Ramadi?

2015-06-20-1434818962-5814871-isisparaderamadi3.jpg


Even Clinton here is basically saying Obama was distracted by Assad -which is crap.
Obama saw the advances he HAD TO.

Islamic State pulls down church crosses in northern Iraq as 200,000 flee
Islamic State, the jihadist group formerly known as Isis, have occupied churches in Iraq, removing crosses and destroying manuscripts, witnesses report, having overrun Kurdish troops forcing 200,000 to flee
+
The US denounced the jihadist offensive, warning the situation for civilians driven from their homes threatens to become a "humanitarian catastrophe".

"It is a situation that that we are looking at very closely," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, following reports that President Barack Obama was actively considering military intervention.
Click to expand...
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

DigitalDave said:
Nobody really gets on a pulpit to call out Christians when a Christian does it. No one of significance tells the President that he has to label them radical Christians. The fact that you are uncomfortable with the label itself proves my point about labeling Muslim terrorists this way. You can't think of a world that isn't black and white, and don't understand you're own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
What hypocrisy?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top