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

Thing1 said:
That's not what I heard. I actually heard that if the President says "radical Islam" 3 times and taps his heels together at the same time, all terrorism will disappear and there will be rainbows throughout the land.
Click to expand...

and thats the kind of thinking that gets us stuck in the path we are on. Refusal to even entertain the other side has a valid arguement.

I am not saying that the carrot shouldnt have been tried first. It has and it has failed.
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

The problem is that the left truly underestimates the threat we face from islam. They foolishly think that just because every muslime doesn't want to blow themselves up that they don't agree with ISIS goals and aims.

Many muslimes are waging a soft jihad against this country that does t involve bombs or guns. People like thingy have a their heads up their asses about the threat because they are wedded to multiculturalism and think they are supporting some noble value meanwhile they are being played by the enemy
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

Just curious.

When Rana's titties went toxic, did she say she had breast cancer or the common cold?

I mean if it doesn't matter what we call things then she should just say she had a cold or the flu

Or what about Leonpussy running around the board trying to goad everyone into calling people racists?

According to Obama's stance on islum it shouldn't matter what we call things right?
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

Anyone have links to these claims that ISIS uses this to recruit people?

I mean the thesis seems to be that some muslime like moon is going about his business fucking camels and all of a sudden he hears the words "islamic terrorism" and runs to join ISIS
 
Thing1 said:
Re: the bolded - bull. You don't even know what you type.

Post # 25: "Does this mean you guys actually fear Muslims more than Christians?"
Click to expand...

statistically you would be a fool not to......unless of course you were an abortion provider in the 90s.........
 
What if harping on "radical Islam" plays right into the radical Islam agenda?

PostmodernProphet said:
statistically you would be a fool not to......unless of course you were an abortion provider in the 90s.........
Click to expand...

To hear thingy and Darcula talk you would think an abortion clinic were being blown up every day remember when the guy shot people near an abortion clinic? Tampon strings went ablaze. Good times
 
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/15...ant-figure-out-the-orlando-terrorists-motive/
The radical Islamist terrorist responsible for the attack in an Orlando nightclub that killed at least 49 people called a local television station during his rampage with a chilling message.


“
I’m the shooter. It’s me,” the terrorist told News 13 in Orlando. “I did it for ISIS. I did it for the Islamic State,” he said, according to a Washington Post account of the call.
Click to expand...

Which brings us to today’s lead editorial in the New York Times. The NYT editorial board, you see, is having some real trouble figuring out who’s responsible for what happened in Orlando. And they cannot figure out what the heck the motive was. When Bruce Jenner tells the New York Times that he’s a girl, by golly he’s a girl. But when a gay Muslim registered Democrat terrorist in the midst of a killing spree declares to the news media that he “did it for the Islamic State,” it is just impossible for the New York Times and its ilk to figure out the true identity of this inscrutable killer. How do you solve a puzzle like sharia?


The New York Times has no clue. This was an actual phrase that an actual human deliberately wrote and published in the NYT today: “While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear[.]” Linger on that for a moment. Surround yourself with it. Drink it in:



While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.
Click to expand...

The terrorist called a news network and declared “I did it for ISIS/I did it for the Islamic State,” and the New York Times editorial board cannot identify the “precise motivation for the rampage.” But lest ye fear, the esteemed editors over there know exactly who the real villain is. No, it’s not the gay Muslim registered Democrat who murdered at least 49 people. It couldn’t possibly his fault.


Here’s who the New York Times blames, in order: Republican politicians, Republican-led state legislatures, Republican governors, Republican federal lawmakers, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, anyone who believes in traditional marriage, anyone who’s ever voted to preserve traditional marriage, and anyone who has ever voted for anyone who believes in or has voted to preserve traditional marriage.


Just as a mentally ill conspiracy theorist can watch video of the moon landing and see nothing but government lies and Hollywood movie sets, the New York Times looks at the pool of blood spilled by an Islamic terrorist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic state and see’s nothing but the outline of the GOP elephant. Where you and I see a plane flying through the sky, the New York Times sees deadly chemtrails laced with Republican rhetoric. While you may think fluoridated water is good for your teeth, the New York Times is pretty convinced it’s a GOP plot to get a radical Islamist terrorist to shoot up a gay nightclub.


In a 600-word editorial about the terrorist massacre in Orlando, the New York Times editorial board names seven Republican politicians. It doesn’t use the world Islam or any of its variants a single time. And it certainly doesn’t mention ISIS, the Islamic terrorist conglomerate which President Barack Obama once characterized as a “JV team” to justify his deliberate refusal to eradicate the group before it became a violent global force.


In the fantasyland of modern progressive politics, if a boy identifies as a girl, then he’s a girl. But if a gay Muslim registered Democrat identifies as a martyr for the Islamic State, he’s still a Republican.
 
Seahawk said:
So no comment about radical Christianity, only to claim I'm some former poster.

Your non answer says it all. You and others turn a blind eye to people talking about radical Christianity only to get in a uproar when people say radical Islam.

That is dumb, very dumb.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

This X 1,000.

ISIS kills more Muslims than any other religious or ethnic group.
 
all the more reason to denounce the jihadists.
Also implicit is denouncing enabling thought (political salafism) that leads to their renunciation of modernity.
You can think of that part as "human rights"

We actually wind up supporting Islam that is healthy, and not infected with hate and killing, as well as being able to target
those who kill us or takfiri by their logic
 
anatta said:
all the more reason to denounce the jihadists.
Also implicit is denouncing enabling thought (political salafism) that leads to their renunciation of modernity.
You can think of that part as "human rights"

We actually wind up supporting Islam that is healthy, and not infected with hate and killing, as well as being able to target
those who kill us or takfiri by their logic
Click to expand...

I don't follow the logic of the bolded.

You can denounce them without tying them to the religion. Why is it so important to make sure we mention Islamic? Obviously, with language differences, it will be easy for many in that region to hear those words and focus on our emphasis of the religious aspect. It certainly is open to use by propagandists who want to try to instigate holy war.

Seahawk keeps bringing up the "Christian extremist" argument, for the wrong reasons, but consider that. What if our officials went out of their way to continually characterize the KKK & abortion bombers & other groups that way? No one would really stand for it, and rightfully so. These are all really just criminals or criminal wannabees who are just hiding behind the religion and perverting its tenets.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't follow the logic of the bolded.

You can denounce them without tying them to the religion. Why is it so important to make sure we mention Islamic? Obviously, with language differences, it will be easy for many in that region to hear those words and focus on our emphasis of the religious aspect. It certainly is open to use by propagandists who want to try to instigate holy war.

Seahawk keeps bringing up the "Christian extremist" argument, for the wrong reasons, but consider that. What if our officials went out of their way to continually characterize the KKK & abortion bombers & other groups that way? No one would really stand for it, and rightfully so. These are all really just criminals or criminal wannabees who are just hiding behind the religion and perverting its tenets.
Click to expand...
the jihadist claim their authority from Salafism- salafi jihad is what RAND uses to describe them, and we are very good at labeling terrorism
(AQ core/affiliates/ISIS,etc.)

If you do some reading http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html the group are described by their goals
and make up.
Meaning this is how you seriously study and combat the mater of worldwide terrorism ( not just 'radical' Islamic)..

when we denounce the vile murderous intentions/actions of the jihadists, we are also SEPARATING it out from the rest of Islam.
So it's both accurate, and lends itself to DHS,and CIA ,and anti-terrorism activities,
as well supporting the vast majority of Islam that doesn't engage/support such
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top