Josh Earnest: Let’s stop using “radical Islam” to describe terrorists

a reply to: neo96

So which term is right-wing PC? Terrorist or Radical? Cuz I thought you wanted us to call them radicals but now you're saying some people can't call terrorists, terrorists.

originally posted by: Kali74
I love how the right likes to pretend they don't get offended, outraged or have their very own political correctness... if you don't call Islamic terrorists radical Islamists then you aren't a patriot and hate America. You couldn't be seen as liking the French until they suffered a terrorist attack, remember Freedom Fries? Is it French fries again now? PC! PC!

lmao...

LOL.

Calling it radical islam was being PC.

Now the LEFT doesn't like that term.

And apparently the LEFT likes to make no distinction when labeling republicans.

As we all know they are all religious fanatics.

Remove all names from it and call it what it is. Evil.

Make no mistake, we are at war with evil, and that evil has chosen to use radical Islamic groups because of their exploitable weaknesses. Evil in the name of god, even better.

Islam is inherently corruptible as are all manmade religions. Islam is not inherently evil, but it is easily radicalized and used by evil.

Is the psychopath who beheads his mother any less evil because he is not a Muslim?

Is the cop less evil because he kills indiscriminately behind a badge?

Anyone can be corrupted by evil, anyone.

Evil will consume this world and destroy it eventually. With or without Islam, if we don't change course soon...

a reply to: neo96

What I really want to know though is are we allowed to call fried potato sticks French fries again or not.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

So which term is right-wing PC? Terrorist or Radical? Cuz I thought you wanted us to call them radicals but now you're saying some people can't call terrorists, terrorists.

I call them what our potus does.

Bunch of right wing neocons over in the ME clinging to their guns, and religion.

Which is why I love topics on Islam.

Only time the LEFT defends those right wing neocons that thump their korans, and cling to their guns, and religion.

I think all radical islamists are radicals.

Especially when they kill other radical islamists.

I'll go on calling it radical Islam, and the Elite/PTB, because they ultimately are behind it all including the criminals in the white house, they're as terroristic as it gets.

a reply to: neo96

Oh for the love of Allah! It's not the neocons clinging to their guns and religion that we're defending from tribalist neanderthals... you brave furballs wanna go over there and just deal with them, go for it... leave the innocents alone.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Oh for the love of Allah! It's not the neocons clinging to their guns and religion that we're defending from tribalist neanderthals... you brave furballs wanna go over there and just deal with them, go for it... leave the innocents alone.

Oh we have tried.

Can't send them to gitmo.

Can't waterboard them to stop them from slaughtering people who haven't done jack snip to anyone.

Can't go over there, and fight them as in them 'illegal' wars.

Hell can't do anything to end their medieval snips.

Hell can't even make the distinction between the good muslims, and the bad ones.

How the EFF does the LEFT think they can win that WAR.

And it is a war.

No matter how much the LEFT is in denial.

a reply to: buster2010

So we should call them Fanatical Islamists. I guess it does have a ring to it

a reply to: neo96
Yup!...No gross religious generalizations from our self-styled, 'enlightened', liberal leadership:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

-- Barack Obama on Midwestern voters

Maybe, instead of RADICAL Islam...we should use the term PROGRESSIVE Islam.

a reply to: Watcher777

They can be called a lot of things.

Islamic Nazi's, Islamic supremacist's, Islamo Fascists, Bigots,racists, and a whole slew of other things.

And there is that Muslim Privilege.

a reply to: neo96

Oh we have tried.

And failed despite GITMO, waterboarding or going over there.

Hell can't even make the distinction between the good muslims, and the bad ones.

Why can't you? Terrorist... Muslim. Easy.

Why not just call it terrorism?

Assigning something else to it gives it power. It provides those who commit it a "cause".

No one called the IRA Radical Catholicists. We just called them terrorists.

Same with all this Charlie Hebdo stuff. A couple of idiots shot up a magazine that posted "blasphemous" pictures.

What happened? More people posted similar pictures.

The support for the satire has been a recruitment drive for them because they can point and say to weak minded individuals who they may seek to radicalise "see, look at all these people posting blasphemous images - they do hate the religion". Unwittingly (or dim wittedly, depending on how you see it) a load of people just aided their cause.

So, give it a simple label. Terrorism. Nothing else needs to be said. That or starve them the oxygen of publicity completely.

a reply to: neo96

Don't forget being nice to them in order to win hearts and minds.

In short, we have to fight them on leftist terms. Maybe the leftists ought to go over there and hold a great big Kumbayah Rally.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neo96

Don't forget being nice to them in order to win hearts and minds.

In short, we have to fight them on leftist terms. Maybe the leftists ought to go over there and hold a great big Kumbayah Rally.

If only the LEFT put half as much time,energy, and money in to defeating terrorism, Than they do Republicans.

The world would be a better place.

In all honesty, we do need both points of view, but they work best when they are in balance and when both sides can come far enough together to agree that they love the country itself. These days, I'm not so sure many in power for the left care overmuch for the country as much as what they think it should be, and things have gotten badly out of balance.

I don't know if the ship will ever be righted.

a reply to: neformore

That was about more than just a couple of guys.

That was a terrorist cell with foreign aid.

Hell one of them met with a radical cleric.

There is no indication that Said Kouachi was ever arrested, but authorities suspect the 34-year-old of a potential direct tie to al Qaeda. A Yemeni intelligence official confirmed Friday that he traveled to Yemen in 2011 and met with Anwar al Awlaki, a radical preacher killed later that year in a purported CIA drone strike. Al Qaeda operatives in the region trained Kouachi for months, U.S. and European sources told Reuters. He then returned to France, where he and his younger brother laid low until the attack on Charlie Hebdo earlier this week.

www.ibtimes.com...

The tie that bonds it ALL together is Islam.

Hell the IRA did not have the global network Islamic terrorists do, and they sure as snip didn't have opec oil backing them or the drug trade, and sex trafficking.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, because the US has been so kind to them.

Let's try a little critical thinking here... the Saudi oil Gods wouldn't have, let's just say nudged since there's still no proof... a massive terrorist attack in the US unless they were guaranteed the response they wanted which only right wing war-hawks could provide. Paving the entire ME for the Saudi's.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: neformore
Hell the IRA did not have the global network Islamic terrorists do, and they sure as snip didn't have opec oil backing them or the drug trade, and sex trafficking.

Actually, the IRA had ties with several global terrorist organisations, dealt in drugs and sex trafficking, as well as in illgeal gambling operations, and received financial and weapons aid from elements within countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea and the USA.

All in the name of "Radical Catholicism", apparently.