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

a reply to: Kali74

But it's clear, via Operation Cyclone, that Muslims were being exclusively recruited, then trained in an amped-up Jihadist Wahhabism.

Outstanding! Succinct and spot on, and I think I has a new hero.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Kali74

But it's clear, via Operation Cyclone, that Muslims were being exclusively recruited, then trained in an amped-up Jihadist Wahhabism.

But don't you think having a religion in the label of the current day extremists just clouds the issue and feeds religious discrimination and hatred?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I understand your position, I just disagree. To me, these schools didn't teach actual Islam, they taught hate, violence and wrapped it all up in Allah and Muhammad... it's brainwashing, not religion. Keeping Islam in the label not only demonizes the non radicals of Islamic faith, it allows ISIS etc... to redefine what being a Muslim is. I think also the right wing media here would be just fine with it, it still allows them to demonize Islam and that's all they really care about on the topic.

It seems clear to me that it isn't yours or Joe's intention to demonize Islam, even that your both sick of such yourselves. Keeping Islam in labeling these horrible people is likely counter-intuitive to that end.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

One of my biggest irritations with modern culture/society is the apparent compulsion to dumb things down because -- people be dumb.

But dumb people are not my problem. If Joe and I clearly lay out how, through devious tactics, modern "radicalize Islam" is an invention of clandestine agencies who then engaged in a global plot to propagate that invention for the sole purpose of defeating a nation state; and some people take away from that "Muslims are violent," it's not our fault.

It is most-certainly Weaponized Islam. There's no other way to describe it.

And today, that weapon evolved into a terrifying threat to the entire world. And that weapon is still using Islam as the recruitment funnel.


Now… I know that this represents a fraction of the number of actual Muslims who would join something like ISIS. The information was presented in a way that should make that clear to anyone.

The problem with using calling ISIS Islamic:

Muslims who are AGAINST ISIS ideology are Offended

Muslims who are FOR ISIS ideology are Empowered

a reply to: HighFive

Did you watch the video?



Feeling an obligation to meter non-vulgar non-insulting accurate language to prevent the potential offense of some, is generally lost on me.

Calling it Weaponized Islam has the direct implication that this version of Islam has been artificially modified. And that's exactly what happened.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
If Joe and I clearly lay out how, through devious tactics, modern "radicalize Islam" is an invention of clandestine agencies who then engaged in a global plot to propagate that invention for the sole purpose of defeating a nation state; and some people take away from that "Muslims are violent," it's not our fault.

Yeah, I get that. And I agree. My initial point on the previous page was about why Obama doesn't use the phrase "radical Muslim". He is a lot more concerned with his words having an effect on the dumb people of this country than you or Joe rightfully are. I absolutely understand your position, and I also understand the inclination to leave religion out of it completely.

Now… I know that this represents a fraction of the number of actual Muslims who would join something like ISIS. The information was presented in a way that should make that clear to anyone.

Yes, it should be clear to anyone. But, as you so eloquently stated, people be dumb.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My initial point on the previous page was about why Obama doesn't use the phrase "radical Muslim"

Well… … … … …

We took editorial privilege and used his verbal tap-dance as an entry point to talk about the deep-history that created ISIS.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I learned a heck of a lot from the video. What's to disagree with? So, I took a small point and got all verbal about it. 'Cause I'm like that.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes I watched the video. The title should have about creating the mujahideen in the 80s
All that was well laid out in the video.

As for the first line of the vid " why won't Obama say radical Islam?"
If you have seen the presidents response to that question, you would know weaponized Islam would not be a suggestion he would use. Everyone knows it's the Islam part he chooses not to use

Only thing I disagree with in the video is that the sole reason our leaders don't call it radical Islam in public is to not offend the Saudis.

There are plenty of Muslims here, like my good neighbors in Dearborn MI( highest per capita Arab population in US) and millions more around the world he doesn't want to offend also...

I like the term you used in your post better.. Artificially modified Islam ..
. The modified makes the Islam acceptable

Just wanted to say I will now be using the term Weaponized in place of radical from here on out. simply brilliant way of escaping the battle around the term radical.

The Administration refuses to use the term "Radical Islam" because it is DOES NOT historically nor accurately describe the motives for their actions. This includes past Administrations as well. This is not due to ignorance but rather strategy.

Senseless and violent acts committed in the name of religion might seem "radical" to outsiders because they are; radical, murderous acts committed on those who refuse to acknowledge and promulgate the "sacred" word of Allah. Islam is the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers. There might be peaceful and moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as peaceful and moderate Islam.

Multiple Administrations have stated these people are perverting Islam for their own gain, but in reality they are not perverting or manipulating anything. They are following the Qur'an verbatim, doing exactly as Allah and Muhammad instruct them to do.

The strategy is clear, the Administration is being careful, strategic if you wish, to not enrage and awaken the millions of peaceful, "disobedient" Muslims in the world by associating these violent acts with their faith. However, in order to successfully combat enemies like ISIS and stop the progression of violent theology, this Administration must recognize them for what they are.... ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS! Aside from their motivations, in the clearest sense islamic fundamentalists are imperialist, authoritarian and totalitarian. THAT is the way we need to be describing them.

Look around you... In a world filled with the lust for control and domination... It often comes cleverly, aggressively and violently.

What the west needs to know about islamic fundamentalism is clear. These people are NOT screwing around. They will beat you, murder you, rape you, torture you, lie to you and will do ANYTHING to spread their ideology. Does it really matter what drives them? In the Qur'an you can find MANY examples of scripture instructing them to perpetrate evil acts. In their eyes, it is the holy text... the holy word of god that instructs and supports them in this mission.

For those who suggested calling it "Weaponized Islam," that is not an accurate depiction either...

Islam is THE weapon...

One of the best episodes so far in my opinion!

Great job!

S&F

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
My initial point on the previous page was about why Obama doesn't use the phrase "radical Muslim"

Well… … … … …

We took editorial privilege and used his verbal tap-dance as an entry point to talk about the deep-history that created ISIS.

And that about wraps it up.

originally posted by: Ziteguyst
The Administration refuses to use the term "Radical Islam" because it is DOES NOT historically nor accurately describe the motives for their actions. This includes past Administrations as well. This is not due to ignorance but rather strategy.

Right. The day after the POTUS announces that this is a conflict with "radical Islam" or "weaponized Islam" or "Sponge Bob Square Pants Islam" or any other kind of Islam it will be all over Jihadist media all across the globe the Great Satan admits to a religious war against the true faith. And it wouldn't change a thing on our end other than (perhaps) satisfy some of those screaming that we have to kill them all. Obviously, the military and intelligence organizations know these people are Islamic and are taking that into account in dealing with this. The object is to avoid further inflaming potential combatants. It has nothing to do with being politically correct or with dumbing things down for Americans. It is also a separate issue from all the f'd up things western institutions and leaders of both parties have done and continue to do that helped create and perpetuate this crisis.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
There absolutely is a belief in that part of the country, among both Catholics and noncatholics, that Catholicism differs from Christianity.

Any Catholic who says that Catholicism isn't Christianity is an idiot and doesn't understand Catholicism. Catholicism is different from Protestantism. But both are Christian.


That being said, I liked this NLBS segment and it's term of 'weaponized Islam'. It fits much better than 'radicalized Islam', and most absolutely better than Obama's refusal to admit that Islam is part of the equation. The truth is in the middle and I think NLBS hit the mark.

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: theNLBS

Shame on Obama for allowing radical Muslim brotherhood in the white house.

Oh, that is Reagan. Never mind.

im just perplexed by obama defending these radicals. he must be one of them.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
im just perplexed by obama defending these radicals. he must be one of them.

In what context are you making that statement? I'm perplexed by you perplexity.