It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Political debate about using the term radical Islam is just silly

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Of course you use the term Radical Islam. Their radical interpretation of Islam is at the heart of what they're doing. They want everyone to believe as they do and there's no "rationale" behind what they're doing. It's completely irrational and their radical interpretation of Islam is at the center of it.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think people are just stupid. They think because you use the term radical Islam you're talking about an entire religion. That's just insane. You're talking about what's at the heart of their violence and cruelty.

If you watch a documentary about Warren Jeff's, he's called a Fundamentalist Mormon. This is because at the heart of what he was doing was his radical interpretation of Mormonism. Where's Obama and Hillary protesting about calling Warren Jeff's a Mormon? The fact is, people have the common sense to know that just because you call Jeff's a Mormon doesn't mean all Mormon's are like Warren Jeff's. You have to point this out because at the center of his atrocities is his radical interpretation of Mormonism.

What Kerry did was simply let it slip out as to how himself, Obama and the left think about these things. They think the terrorist have a rationale to what they're doing. They think they're upset by something they can eventually solve through talks and reasoning. This is the danger of not calling it Radical Islam because their isn't any rationale or reasoning behind it. Behind it is RADICAL ISLAM and this doesn't mean all Muslims have a radical interpretation of Islam it just means at the heart of the enemy you're facing is a radical interpretation of Islam that's irrational.




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Not that I give two tosses what they're called...

What would happen if Obama called them radical Muslims of radical Islam?

What would change?
What would be gained?


No one has answered those questions for me yet.
Maybe you will.
edit on 19-11-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Augustus Masonicus has lots of beer left.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
It is just hard to swallow everyone telling us that the Islamic state is not Islamic.

It matters because it creates a talking point that takes away from talk of solutions.

They are radical and they are Islamic.

but we should just call them a pack of lone wolves I guess.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Everything would change.

At the heart of Obama's policy is that this isn't about Islam. Here's what Hillary just said:

In a statement her own campaign Tweeted out as her marquee comment, Clinton declared: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

This is just an IDIOTIC STATEMENT.

First off, just because you use the term Radical Islam doesn't mean that you're at war with a religion. That's just pure liberal nonsense.

Secondly, to say Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism is just insane. Muslims who have a radical interpretation of Islam have everything to do with terrorism.

This is just dangerously naive. A radical Interpretation of Islam is at the heart of what they're doing and if you don't recognize this you will keep looking for a "rationale" behind what they're doing.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not looking to rationalise anything.

Ok that would be the change...

What would be the gain?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What would you call them Mr Speirs? Asking in all honesty what public term to use that is not offensive to the general Muslim people.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

It happens all the time.

Recently people took issue with the term "anchor baby" and rather than discuss the true issue (should being born on United States soil cause to the baby to have automatic citizenship or should this be re-evaluated)... the main topic was whether or not the "term" was offensive and hurt people's feelings.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Again, this is why the debate is a silly one.

The gain would be a better understanding of who and what we're up against and better ways to fight them.

At this point, they're just living it up. They're on twitter and facebook celebrating after an attack and bringing in new recruits. It was just a report that they held a graduation ceremony in Afghanistan.

I thought Obama was supposed to be the internet President. Where's the propaganda, where's the push back on social media. These guys have a ton of money and they're just comfortable.

This is because Obama and the left don't recognize this is about a radical interpretation of Islam. This has everything to do with Radical Islam and when you recognize this there's a ton to gain and many ways you can discredit them through propaganda and a strong push back on social media alongside an aggressive coalition of mercenaries on the ground to take them out.

They downed a Russian plane with 224 people on board, they killed 43 in Beirut and over 120 in Paris over the span of a few weeks. They're emboldened because they're comfortable and their ultimate goal is to attack in the United States and at the heart of everything they're doing is radical Islam
edit on 19-11-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Can we just call them, "THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO KILL US"?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
It's just another tactic to use to stop the discussion

Change the terminology change the conversation

Liberal left does this all the time. It's Saul alinsky 101



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Islamic goat pokers how's that sound to ya?? I mean really all goes with them !!




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neoholographic

Can we just call them, "THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO KILL US"?



Nope, because radical Islam is at the heart of what they're doing.

For instance, when you watch a doc on WW2 you will hear terms like Nazi's and Germans. Now all Germans and Nazi's didn't agree with Hitler so should we stop calling them Germans and Nazi's in order not to offend any Germans or former Nazi's that didn't agree with Hitler? That would just be stupid.
edit on 19-11-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I think part of the problem, and it is something that we in the United States do far too often, is that we "declare war" on inanimate things or ideas.

War on Drugs

War on Obesity

War on _________

War on Terror: These types of ridiculous conversations we are having recently about "most Muslims" or "some Muslims" or "no Muslims" all got started when we declared a "War on Terror." Why didn't we declare war on al Quieda? The minute we used the vague "War on Terror" mantra we headed down this road.

That being said, it really is unfortunate that for some of our "leaders"... this is ALL they talk about? The world is on fire and all some of them can say is, "We need to remember we are not at war with Islam. Most people of the faith are peaceful" and so on and so forth. NO S---T SHERLOCK!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!! WE KNOW THAT!!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT ISIS?.... crickets....




edit on 19-11-2015 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2015 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I have no opinion on the PC angle of the discussion. BUt I will point out that, psychologically speaking, tying words together can stain them. Its guilt by association.

Muslim terrorist
drunken Irishman
fat American
gun death/gun violence
drug crime

A word describing something less savory, when grouped with a word that is more benign, will end in both carrying the same stain.

Is it on purpose? Who knows. Its common in politics and marketing to group words in a way that delivers a message. Like every time Kerry was spoken about by the Bush campaign, they'd make sure they mentioned "cut and run" over and over, always associating it with Kerry.

So who knows if these things are on purpose or just a result of regular old human classification. But the term "Muslim terrorist" does give a negative stain to the word "Muslim" just by negative association as a side effect of the basic human psychology



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mother in-law.... shudder



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

I'm really not bothered what people call them.


Just inquisitive to the benefits of a specified title when it'll still be the same problematic group.



I call them scum.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's just more political nonsense like race baiting. When they have nothing else to run on they pull out the hate card.

Somewhere in the background, I envision a team of little political elves saying arguing over semantics will net you .1% more of the vote, so go for it and let the slander fly.


Terrorists who are Islamic and Radical Islamic Terrorist are the same sick people. Scum works



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Not that I give two tosses what they're called...

What would happen if Obama called them radical Muslims of radical Islam?

What would change?
What would be gained?


No one has answered those questions for me yet.
Maybe you will.


Let me take a swing at it...

What would change?

There is a significant number of people here in America who believe there is a religious war to end all wars on the horizon and they'd like nothing more than for this to be it.

It's the signal for the second coming of their savior and turning this into a Muslims vs Christian war reaffirms their belief in the validity of their chosen prophecy.

In their minds, the U.S. Military is really the "Lord's Army" and should stand up for Christians above all others.

Did I mention that ISIS would also like nothing more than to drag the U.S. into a religious war?

What would be gained?

Nothing, absolutely nothing!



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
It really is stupid about how to term these nut jobs. Personally they are Radical muslim extremist. Funny how Obama has more contempt for Americans in the opposing party then the real enemy. Our maybe the opposing party is the real enemy to him.

dislaimer: Though I have no problem using the term "Radical Muslim Extremist" I do not for a second believe ALL muslims are bad people contrary to what Obozo would have everyone believe.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
It's just another tactic to use to stop the discussion

Change the terminology change the conversation

Liberal left does this all the time. It's Saul alinsky 101


And both Obama and Clinton use Alinsky's 12 Rules of Radicalism constantly. That is the game plan . Plus using Goebel's Big Lie theory:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”




new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join