Where did Omar Mateen stand?

Darla said:
I'm sure I read that was based on some faulty exit polling, but I don't want to go back in time and search that out.

As far as liberals go, the pitchfork left are the worst always putting on airs that they are so pure. That's the "brocialist" left, or really the white progressive left. I really don't hang with that group. They are full of shit. And there is tons of racism and sexism among them. They are more open with their sexism, you couldn't tell some of them apart from the nastiest righties. They are more subtle with their racism. Patronizing. The usual. I make no claims that liberals can't be racist or sexist, or stupid for that matter. You will never see me make that claim or any claim like it. Why do you think so many on this board on both sides can't stand me. I know they don't like me. I don't care. And I hold back a lot. If I let loose on here about this stupidity like I do elsewhere the only person still talking to me would be Rune. Well, maybe you. :)
Click to expand...

When California granted homosexuals the right to marry, what do you think the percent of blacks were opposed?
 
anatta said:
Oh !oh! call on me!

Things are only gonna change when Islam decides it is not going to tolerate/support salafi jihad.
One thing the west can do is tell Islam in general to clean up it's act; and that the radicalism of the jihadist are PART of Islam-
but we are not at war with MS Islam..
Hoping that the murderous thugs of ISIS are not emulated, like they are fought by Sunnis in Iraq/Syria

that's one benefit of calling things what they are ( plus not having to do pretzel language every time one speaks)
Click to expand...

You can't tell a religion to clean up its act and not get any blowback. It's not even the majority religion in the US. Think about it, Muslim fundamentals criticize the US because they think our western values are depraved, and we're outraged by it. Yet we think we have the right to tell others how to act and what to believe.

I think it would be a grave mistake to use the words "radical Islam" just as it would be to say "radical Judaism" or "radical Christianity." We'd be doing more harm than good, IMO.
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe you can explain how anything will change if Obama/Hillary/liberals use the words "radical Islam."
Click to expand...

Be happy to. Maybe you can get around to my question.

The issue with the words 'radical Islam' is that nothing will change if you use them. This claim that it will increase terror attacks or terrorist recruiting is made without a shred of evidence to back it. It's also simply not true that it implicates all of Islam.

The word 'radical' is a qualifier. If we wanted to say we were at war with Islam, we would say 'we are at war with Islam'. But we're not at war with Islam since 'radical' signifies we are at war with a subset of Muslims that are clearly at war with us.

In fact, it's a defensive struggle on our part. It's really not that hard to communicate. I just did it in a paragraph but Obama and Hillary can't or won't.
 
christiefan915 said:
You can't tell a religion to clean up its act and not get any blowback. It's not even the majority religion in the US. Think about it, Muslim fundamentals criticize the US because they think our western values are depraved, and we're outraged by it. Yet we think we have the right to tell others how to act and what to believe.

I think it would be a grave mistake to use the words "radical Islam" just as it would be to say "radical Judaism" or "radical Christianity." We'd be doing more harm than good, IMO.
Click to expand...
you don't insult Islam as a whole by calling out jihadists.
Take ISIS in Syria or Iraq for ex. -who are the ground troops? (Iran Shia and Iraqi and Kurds Sunni). Against ISIS

What you are doing then is supporting those who are in the struggle against the perverse interpretation of Salafi jihad.
In the Middle east the term 'Daesh' is used as an Arabic term of derision to ISIS

There is no modern equivalent of "radical Xtians" whom have any power, and the violent Christian fundamentalists ARE called out separately.
Yes Muslim fundies do think we are depraved, but they also think fellow Muslims are depraved.

What we do when we callout radical Islam is in a great part support Islam that hasn't been coopted by the jihadists.
Have confidence that speaking to the truth is always the best course in the long run.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Be happy to. Maybe you can get around to my question.

The issue with the words 'radical Islam' is that nothing will change if you use them. This claim that it will increase terror attacks or terrorist recruiting is made without a shred of evidence to back it. It's also simply not true that it implicates all of Islam.

The word 'radical' is a qualifier. If we wanted to say we were at war with Islam, we would say 'we are at war with Islam'. But we're not at war with Islam since 'radical' signifies we are at war with a subset of Muslims that are clearly at war with us.

In fact, it's a defensive struggle on our part. It's really not that hard to communicate. I just did it in a paragraph but Obama and Hillary can't or won't.
Click to expand...

Read #162. "Radical Islam" is dissing a religion, not terrorists. What you think is radical may not be what Muslims think is radical. I have zero problem with Obama, Hillary or whoever being diplomatic when dealing with other countries and their cultures. It's oafs like Trump and his sweeping generalizations who scare me.
 
anatta said:
you don't insult Islam as a whole by calling out jihadists.
Take ISIS in Syria or Iraq for ex. -who are the ground troops? (Iran Shia and Iraqi and Kurds Sunni). Against ISIS

What you are doing then is supporting those who are in the struggle against the perverse interpretation of Salafi jihad.
In the Middle east the term 'Daesh' is used as an Arabic term of derision to ISIS

There is no modern equivalent of "radical Xtians" whom have any power, and the violent Christian fundamentalists ARE called out separately.
Yes Muslim fundies do think we are depraved, but they also think fellow Muslims are depraved.

What we do when we callout radical Islam is in a great part support Islam that hasn't been coopted by the jihadists.
Have confidence that speaking to the truth is always the best course in the long run.
Click to expand...

"Our" interpretation of truth is not everybody's.
 
christiefan915 said:
Read #162. "Radical Islam" is dissing a religion, not terrorists. What you think is radical may not be what Muslims think is radical. I have zero problem with Obama, Hillary or whoever being diplomatic when dealing with other countries and their cultures. It's oafs like Trump and his sweeping generalizations who scare me.
Click to expand...
No .Radical Islam is dissing specifically the terrorist, instead of dissing the entire religion.
It's a qualifier, not a slur..It is supporting MainStream Islam while calling out the radicals
 
christiefan915 said:
Read #162. "Radical Islam" is dissing a religion, not terrorists. What you think is radical may not be what Muslims think is radical. I have zero problem with Obama, Hillary or whoever being diplomatic when dealing with other countries and their cultures. It's oafs like Trump and his sweeping generalizations who scare me.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you'd put it that way. The radicals insist there is only one Islam. It's actually being diplomatic and respectful to moderate Muslims to differentiate between the two. People who use the term radical Islam should be given some credit for making the distinction.

So, what's the best politically correct term to use for them?
 
anatta said:
No .Radical Islam is dissing specifically the terrorist, instead of dissing the entire religion.
It's a qualifier, not a slur..It is supporting MainStream Islam while calling out the radicals
Click to expand...

Then they should use the words "radical terrorist" or "radical Muslim terrorist" (even though I'd hate that).

We just don't identify other terrorists by religion like we do Muslims.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Interesting that you'd put it that way. The radicals insist there is only one Islam. It's actually being diplomatic and respectful to moderate Muslims to differentiate between the two. People who use the term radical Islam should be given some credit for making the distinction.

So, what's the best politically correct term to use for them?
Click to expand...

If there was only one Islam, there would be no Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi and the rest. It's just as sectarian as any other religion.

What's wrong with saying "(name of country) terrorists"?
 
anatta said:
Both MS Islam and the west condemns "radical Islam". we are in solidarity with Muslims who are at war with ISIS
Click to expand...

The term is couched firmly in the lexicon it's been used to much. Everyone knows what it means---and what it doesn't mean by now.

The fact Obama and Hillary think it actually matters if we don't use it makes you wonder if they really have a firm grasp on the issue. Which is kind of scary, IMO.
 
christiefan915 said:
Then they should use the words "radical terrorist" or "radical Muslim terrorist" (even though I'd hate that).

We just don't identify other terrorists by religion like we do Muslims.
Click to expand...
agreed "radical Islam" is shorthand. It's not the best -I think Bush came up with it(?) and you know how he could butcher a phrase.

"Radical Islamic Terrorists " it is then. I agree it's the best term for the west to use.
 
christiefan915 said:
If there was only one Islam, there would be no Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi and the rest. It's just as sectarian as any other religion.

What's wrong with saying "(name of country) terrorists"?
Click to expand...

So, Omar Mateen becomes an American terrorist? Even though we know he's was an Islamic terrorist?

That's absurd.
 
christiefan915 said:
If there was only one Islam, there would be no Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi and the rest. It's just as sectarian as any other religion.

What's wrong with saying "(name of country) terrorists"?
Click to expand...
works for me too, except most countries are not 100% uniform.
"Syrian terrorists" could also mean Assad's campaign of terror. or Nigerian terrorists could mean the regime and not Boko Haram
But i'm not going to nitpick a good idea to death :)
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
So, Omar Mateen becomes an American terrorist? Even though we know he's was an Islamic terrorist?

That's absurd.
Click to expand...

He is an American and he is a terrorist. There's nothing absurd about it.

Nobody was all about calling Dylan Roof or Adam Lanza a Christian terrorist. The excuse was that we didn't know if they were Christians.
 
When all is said and done liberals will have major egg on their faces with regards to this incident but as always they lack the self awareness and honesty to ever admit it. But voters know and the left will pay a price at the ballot box

Sorry lefties but there aren't enough muslime scum in this country to carry an election for ya. But you guys can rule Dearborn MI though. So that is something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top