Obama is Avoiding the Phrase "Radical Islam" for Strategic Reasons, not to be "Politically Correct".

[Shadow Wolf]

Why are you trying to defend these monsters? They, by their own admissions and actions, are blowing people into small pieces in the name of their religious beliefs. Please get your head out the sand.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, and probably also cultural awareness and sensitivity. "Allahu akbar" literally means "god is great," and lots of Muslims who aren't terrorists say it. I was trying to remain more within forum rules, but I'm sure "**** you" has been said to a lot of people just before they were murdered, but saying "**** you" doesn't make you a murderer. And then we can look back and know how many people have recited and read directly from the Bible as they tortured and killed people, often in proceedings sanctioned by the state, how many times the Nazis did something for "god and country," and I'm sure members of the Army of God were fond of Biblical passages such as "the Lord is my shepard" or "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death."

Look at the reaction to the Westboro Baptist Church folks. Again, good people have risen up against them.

Oh, you mean risen up far enough to be concerned about their "religious freedoms" while giving giving no ****s or damns about the rights of people mourning at a funeral?

 

[tytlyf]

Nobody gives a crap about peoples feelings. One can become too sensitive to this kind of drivel.

People are sensitive? Got a source? No one has to be tolerant of bigots and racists.

 

[BSM1]

What answer did you put down for question #7?

Busted....

 

[BSM1]

Yes, but did you hear any politician or news reporter say or write "Christian terrorists"?

My point is that we don't use that terminology because it would offend many Christians plus some others, so shouldn't we have much the same sensitivity and be reluctant to use the terminology "Muslim terrorists"? Hey, most people are bright enough whereas the minute one uses the term "terrorist" they can most likely fill in the blank on their own: "____ terrorists".

BTW, if you doubt about what I say the reaction would most likely be by many here to "Christian terrorists", wait a short while and start a thread by that title and then begin to cite instances whereas different people and groups terrorized others using "Christianity" as their excuse. Then let's see how people here react to your terminology.

Give me one example when any Christian, or Buddhist or Hindu or Shinto, or et al, recently strapped on ten pounds of explosives and blew up men, women, and children just waiting in line to go home.

 

[tytlyf]

Give me one example when any Christian, or Buddhist or Hindu or Shinto, or et al, recently strapped on ten pounds of explosives and blew up men, women, and children just waiting in line to go home.

They don't have to improvise explosives due to access to guns. Duh.

 

[BSM1]

They don't have to improvise explosives due to access to guns. Duh.

You win...

 

[tytlyf]

You win...

Thanks. Just pointing out the truth. Improvised devices are used when access to firearms isn't available. In the states, republicans lobbied by the NRA are in favor of terrorists legally buying guns. They even vote against laws that would restrict them. Anything for profits.

 

[YmirGF]

People are sensitive? Got a source? No one has to be tolerant of bigots and racists.

Intolerance of intolerance... the new fascism...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are sensitive? Got a source? No one has to be tolerant of bigots and racists.

Fighting intolerance with intolerance is inherently self defeating. Defeating an ideology requires you to not give someone the satisfaction of fulfilling the biases of their ideology. Of course you can't win everybody over, but why prove anti-LBGT Christians correct when they are preaching people are trying to silence them? Even in the ancient book The Art of War it is advised that a sound strategy revolves around treating your enemies with dignity and respect to win them over to your side, add to your numbers by requiting from the enemy, and using the ones your convert to plant seeds of doubt and defeat the enemy from within. In more modern times this manifested as repressed minorities and populations demonstrating their moral superiority by not showing violence and intolerance towards their oppressors.

 

[ShivaFan]

Obama is in part guilty for Islamic terrorists viz ISIS, and Hillary in the State Dept armned tbe "rebels" who turned out to be Islamic terrorists. Obama is guilty of so many failures and outrageous betrayals, he now wants to control our rght to free speech and factual words by word smiting to cover for his crimes. These are Radical Jihahi and Islamic terrorist attacks. No one is confused. Obamanists are not comfortable with democracy. Neither is the far left which has an un-holy alliance with violent Islamists.

 

[Acim]

Yes, but did you hear any politician or news reporter say or write "Christian terrorists"?

My point is that we don't use that terminology because it would offend many Christians plus some others, so shouldn't we have much the same sensitivity and be reluctant to use the terminology "Muslim terrorists"? Hey, most people are bright enough whereas the minute one uses the term "terrorist" they can most likely fill in the blank on their own: "____ terrorists".

BTW, if you doubt about what I say the reaction would most likely be by many here to "Christian terrorists", wait a short while and start a thread by that title and then begin to cite instances whereas different people and groups terrorized others using "Christianity" as their excuse. Then let's see how people here react to your terminology.

As a Christian, and a non-traditional believer, I don't see it as offensive. I also don't see how if it were occurring, such that KKK has declared war on U.S. government, that my offensiveness to that term ought to matter. If people want to step up on a soapbox and make claims along lines of "this is what Christianity does. All of it is terrorism. It's not possible to be Christian and not be a terrorist," then that would be another matter. But if leaders who are fighting against this form of terrorism, were to use the words of 'radical Christian terrorists' then I don't know if it's because I graduated from the 1st grade or I'm just that wise of a person to realize this doesn't apply to me in what the leader is identifying. If I were associating with people hatching schemes to wipe out/hurt/kill Americans (be they Christian or not) and the leader was making those assertions, I'd be nervous. I'd be thinking he or she is telling everyone to be on the lookout for people who self identify as Christian and are possibly making schemes to harm Americans. I'd probably then try to start a political campaign that says you shall never ever use the words 'radical Christian terrorists' together, because, um, er, it is inherently offensive to all of us good Christians. And we hate you for saying this. We hate you so much we will kill you. Wait! Scratch that last part from the record. I didn't mean that. I'm a good Christian and ... oh look ... there's a sale on body armor.

 

[ShivaFan]

Obama, Obamanists, the far left, are serious threats to free speech. They now want to scrub and criminalize words that expose their failures and questions their real agenda. Obama, Hillary, the far left, are all guilty of coddling Islamic terrorists and Radical Jihadis. Hillary and her State Department ran guns to the "rebels" un Libya which turned out to be Islamic terrorists, the embassay was a communications centre, the terrorists used the weapons she gave them to attack the embassay, she lied to the families of those who had loved one's murdered and said it was an internet video, these are the tgles of "leaders" who now want to word smith language to criminalize the truth and to cover for their malfeasance, failures and betrayals.

These word smiths are a serious danger to democracy itself.

They would have opened Europe to terrorists travelling from Turkey to travel into Europe without a passport. Thank God England has said otherwise and is leaving the failed EU. Another terrorist attack is underway right now in Bangladesh, and no doubt the Obamanists will use word smithing and word censorship again by parroting the statement by Bangladesh authoritjtes the attack was made by "retrograde yuuths" (Bengali to English). No. This was an attack by Radical Jihadis, Islamic terrorists, Islamic extremists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Obama is in part guilty for Islamic terrorists viz ISIS, and Hillary in the State Dept armned tbe "rebels" who turned out to be Islamic terrorists. Obama is guilty of so many failures and outrageous betrayals, he now wants to control our rght to free speech and factual words by word smiting to cover for his crimes. These are Radical Jihahi and Islamic terrorist attacks. No one is confused. Obamanists are not comfortable with democracy. Neither is the far left which has an un-holy alliance with violent Islamists.

Reagan and Oliver North also share a great deal of blame, as they are the ones who propped up Al Qaeda in the first place.
And again you go on about this nonsense of this "unholy alliance" between the far left and Muslim extremists, even though such an alliance in non-existent.

 

[metis]

Nobody gives a crap about peoples feelings. One can become too sensitive to this kind of drivel.

A bodhisattva does, as do other people of compassion.

 

[metis]

Give me one example when any Christian, or Buddhist or Hindu or Shinto, or et al, recently strapped on ten pounds of explosives and blew up men, women, and children just waiting in line to go home.

You have again misrepresented the point, so why don't you comment on what I really posted versus fabricating excuses to avoid doing so. So, let me recommend you go back to my post #65 and actually deal with what I posted in an honest manner instead of doing a disingenuous shuffle to avoid it. As a reminder, here's what I wrote:

"Yes, but did you hear any politician or news reporter say or write "Christian terrorists"?

My point is that we don't use that terminology because it would offend many Christians plus some others, so shouldn't we have much the same sensitivity and be reluctant to use the terminology "Muslim terrorists"? Hey, most people are bright enough whereas the minute one uses the term "terrorist" they can most likely fill in the blank on their own: "____ terrorists".

BTW, if you doubt about what I say the reaction would most likely be by many here to "Christian terrorists", wait a short while and start a thread by that title and then begin to cite instances whereas different people and groups terrorized others using "Christianity" as their excuse. Then let's see how people here react to your terminology."

If you can't stick to what's posted, then there's no reason for me to continue the farce you've created.

 

[metis]

As a Christian, and a non-traditional believer, I don't see it as offensive. I also don't see how if it were occurring, such that KKK has declared war on U.S. government, that my offensiveness to that term ought to matter. If people want to step up on a soapbox and make claims along lines of "this is what Christianity does. All of it is terrorism. It's not possible to be Christian and not be a terrorist," then that would be another matter. But if leaders who are fighting against this form of terrorism, were to use the words of 'radical Christian terrorists' then I don't know if it's because I graduated from the 1st grade or I'm just that wise of a person to realize this doesn't apply to me in what the leader is identifying. If I were associating with people hatching schemes to wipe out/hurt/kill Americans (be they Christian or not) and the leader was making those assertions, I'd be nervous. I'd be thinking he or she is telling everyone to be on the lookout for people who self identify as Christian and are possibly making schemes to harm Americans. I'd probably then try to start a political campaign that says you shall never ever use the words 'radical Christian terrorists' together, because, um, er, it is inherently offensive to all of us good Christians. And we hate you for saying this. We hate you so much we will kill you. Wait! Scratch that last part from the record. I didn't mean that. I'm a good Christian and ... oh look ... there's a sale on body armor.

Whether you agree with Obama or not, he is reluctant to use terminology that can imply that there's something intrinsically pro-terrorist within Islam.

Personally, I have frequently used "radical Islam" and other such terminology. You will call it words that you seem to fit this, I will use words that I feel will fit this, and Obama will use words that he feels better fit this. The fact that so many on the right expect him to use the "right words", namely words that they feel Obama should use, is actually quite childish, especially since using the "right words" changes nothing.

All this is is word-play used by Fox and others on the right in an attempt to portray Obama to be weak on terror. There's no doubt that some of his policies can be subject to criticism, and I am one of them who has done so at times, but focusing on the words that the right say would be politically-correct for him to use is just silly.

 

[BSM1]

Thanks. Just pointing out the truth. Improvised devices are used when access to firearms isn't available. In the states, republicans lobbied by the NRA are in favor of terrorists legally buying guns. They even vote against laws that would restrict them. Anything for profits.

Okay...sure...

 

[ShivaFan]

And I'm sure you believe Obama causes sunspots and all the universe's other calamities, and that if he just says the right magical words that everything will instantly be fixed.

The reference "you" is a PERSONAL attack and not a general statement about policy, events, non-member politicians, and I demand an apology for violations of the rules regarding trolling and personal statements directed specifically at members.

 

[tytlyf]

Okay...sure...

I'll play. Is the NRA in favor of people on the terror watch list being able to buy a gun? The terror watch list is different than the no-fly list.

 

[metis]

The reference "you" is a PERSONAL attack and not a general statement about policy, events, non-member politicians, and I demand an apology for violations of the rules regarding trolling and personal statements directed specifically at members.

So many of your posts contain one insult after another after another, and now you're insulted because I used the word "you"?