NLBS #40: President Obama Can't Say "Radical Islam", so We Offer "Weaponized Islam"

Can any of these folks stop lying for even ten seconds? No, apparently they can not. If I had my way every one with any involvement whatsoever in US politics would be required by law to be wired into the best lie detecting available when speaking on camera.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Agreed, but that's why we call Baptist Schools "Baptist Schools." Catholic schools "Catholic Schools",

Nope.

Back in the day, every Wednesday the I'd leave at 1PM to walk to "Religion Class" with all the other kids going to "Religion Class."

Some were Baptist. Some were Catholic. Some were Presbyterian. Some were Lutheran. It was all lumped together.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Agreed, but that's why we call Baptist Schools "Baptist Schools." Catholic schools "Catholic Schools",

Nope.

Back in the day, every Wednesday the I'd leave at 1PM to walk to "Religion Class" with all the other kids going to "Religion Class."

Some were Baptist. Some were Catholic. Some were Presbyterian. Some were Lutheran. It was all lumped together.

You obviously grew up in a different part of the country than I did. Hell, people had arguments over whether Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans were even 'Christian' religions to begin with.

I love me some alphabet boys causing some trouble videos.

Very informative, great video as usual.

Wonder if we are gonna anyone calling joe an isis sympathizer...

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Agreed, but that's why we call Baptist Schools "Baptist Schools." Catholic schools "Catholic Schools",

Nope.

Back in the day, every Wednesday the I'd leave at 1PM to walk to "Religion Class" with all the other kids going to "Religion Class."

Some were Baptist. Some were Catholic. Some were Presbyterian. Some were Lutheran. It was all lumped together.

You obviously grew up in a different part of the country than I did. Hell, people had arguments over whether Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans were even 'Christian' religions to begin with.

Off topic, I have an employee who is Hispanic and nominally Catholic and she once complained to me about the falsehoods that are told about Catholics by the "Christians." I unsuccessfully tried to explain to her that Catholics were actually Christians as well before I realized it was best to just drop it.

a reply to: DelMarvel

LOL. I grew up in the deep southwest, majority Mexican community. There absolutely is a belief in that part of the country, among both Catholics and noncatholics, that Catholicism differs from Christianity.

So...is Obama an Muslim or not?

I was already aware that we caused this mess...but thanks for the history lesson.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nail on the head. It's all about politically correct wording and speech. Which, obviously, is mostly spewed forth by folks who have never been engaged by a jihadi on the field of battle.

Spits.

Great historical context, I learned new information.

As SO is constantly saying that posters haven't watched the video, perhaps you could write up the key points for the original post? This way you wouldn't have to consistently argue or repeat what is in the video.

a reply to: theNLBS

Joe, despite the sound problems, and the fact that you seem to have shot this video in someone's living room (really? THAT much cream tone? The walls AND the drapes? REALLY? ) I thought it was a damned good effort.

That said, I think the reason that Mr Obama does not use the term radical Islam, is perhaps a little more nuanced than a simple wish to assist people in forgetting the origins of this eras brand of insane zealotry. The simple fact is that much as the IRA and UVF in Ireland were NOT fighting over religion, or for freedom, but over territory and drug sales rights by the end of the troubles there, modern Islamic terror organisations only USE religion as a tool to lever potential gang members into a position where they are more likely to join up with the middle eastern equivalent of a cartel.

Its a shameful thing, and to be sure, there is much more infrastructure control exerted by the terror organisations in the Middle East, like IS for example, than ever was the case with the IRA or the UVF. But the fact remains that they are little more than a large, powerful gang, whose mission statement publicly, has little or nothing to do with their actual aims, which are the amassing of great wealth for its leaders, territory for the gang, and to fool great numbers of people into believing that their activities have anything to do with religion so that no one questions them.

Their indoctrination tactics are powerful of course, but in reality their existence as an organisation is no more about Islam, than the IRA were about one or another form of Christianity. It is all a nonsense.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Maybe people could just, you know, watch the video?

Just a thought?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I personally gave up on it 2 min in for now. I cant get any more angry at the blatant BS for the present. Will watch it tomorrow.

Great vid 😊

Wish you'd gone a bit more into the history of Iran, which also played a pivotal role in pissing the locals in the Mid East off, but no doubt time constraints get in the way.

a reply to: TrueBrit
You think the IRA might have gained a much better foothold if some asshat country was bombing the # out of the region and messing with the governments at the same time the battle was raging?

a reply to: TKDRL

Without a doubt.

It stands to reason. I think that on the specific issue of IS, and how one refers to them it is important to understand what is, and what is not happening.

Very informative video. Thanks again, NLBS!

I'd like to posit that the reason Obama doesn't use the term "Radical Islam" isn't because of the word "radical". Changing that to "weaponized" doesn't really solve his concern at all. I do see the truth of what you're saying, but I don't think that's Obama's motivation.

The reason he doesn't use "Radical Islam" is that using a religion in the description of these monsters paints the entire religion of Islam as possible radicals, in some people's minds. MANY people's minds. And that's a problem we already have too much of in this country and in the world right now.

It's like using the terms, "Criminal Blacks", "Redneck Whites", "Homophobic Christians", "Dirty Hippies" or "Feminazi Women"... The first word, even though a minority of the whole, injects a negative connotation into the second word. An assumption is made (by many) that blacks are criminals, whites are rednecks, Christians are homophobic... you get the drift.

"Radical Muslims" aren't following the religion of Islam any more than Fred Phelps or murderers of abortion doctors are following Christianity, even though they were likely raised in Christianity. They are USING their sick interpretation of their religion to justify their actions and could be called "Radical Christians", which is actually accurate, but politically incorrect, because of the connotation. And most Christians would balk at the use of the phrase for these nutjobs that hate and kill in the name of their religion.

So, I don't think "Islam" should be in the descriptive phrase at all and I imagine Obama would agree with me. Radicals, extremists, terrorists, political radicals, radical murderers... these would all work just fine. Because those barbarians are no more Muslims than I am.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Very informative video. Thanks again, NLBS!


It's like using the terms, "Criminal Blacks", "Redneck Whites", "Homophobic Christians", "Dirty Hippies" or "Feminazi Women"... The first word, even though a minority of the whole, injects a negative connotation into the second word. An assumption is made (by many) that blacks are criminals, whites are rednecks, Christians are homophobic... you get .

"Weaponized Islam" Sounds like regular Islam, but now with weapons.

Good info about cia involvement and some of these groups origins, but the title doesn't deliver on why Obama would call it weaponized instead of radical Islam

I think it's interesting that the thread discussion went into narrative changes of Arabic expressions...



& I'd like to hear those people's thoughts on the word Jihadist...

The Western narrative of a Jihadist...
Which has no connotation to the Arabic word, nor it's definition!





I'll watch the video when I get the chance...
However the thread is quite specific that it's about what to call these terrorists...

Psychopaths is a good one, and a catch all generalisation that is unlikely to offend!


Not "you said something and I'm offended" offend...

But "we said something with the intention to be offensive" offend.



Meh, semantics anyways, as long as the psychopaths are stopped...
What does it matter?

Lots of information to think about.

I disagree about using Islam/Muslim/Islamist in the label. They aren't really Islamic, there's no similarities between a member of ISIS or al qaeda and the majority of Muslims. Why can't we just say ISIS or al qaeda? That's their label.

No one in the media or in politics labeled Timothy McVeigh a radical Christian. That's only talked about by the rest of us. And that was the correct call for the media and politicians.

We all, well most of us know that extremism in religion is generally not a good thing... and most of us know that the extremists are a minority in any given religion.

That is because they work for him.