Why Obama refuses the label: "Islamist fanatics"

[forkup]

The Jihad will continue as long as people like Trump are taken as serious candidates in the US. It's very easy for radical Islam to get support for a crusade against the west when ,people who are supposed to be our leaders don't differentiate between Muslims ad Jihadis. Trump is the poster boy ISIS dreams of.

That's ridiculous. What about the last seven years? What about the seventies? What about n the 18th & 19th centuries when they were seizing our vessels and enslaving people?

I love how you try to state a case that recent terrorism started under Obama. It started when Bush destabalised the Middle East by invading Iraq. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm making the case that when you call on a ban of Muslims, you are activly recruiting people to a cause that states that the west wants to destroy Islam. It's not coincedental that ISIS releases recruiting videos featuring Trump.

That is not at all what I am saying, that's ridiculous. My point is to counter the ridiculous notion that this is all our fault. They were doing this shit to us in the 19th & 18th centuries.

Of course it's not all our fault, but you can easily make it worse. I would go a different route. I don't care if a bomb goes off next to my head, it didn't happen. If you take away their sense of accomplishment you will discourage alot of the ppl who fall for the idea that it is romantic to die a martyr. So simply refuse to report it.

Ok, so pretend like it didn't happen.

Good grief.

Yea exactly. Look at the people who do this. Their usually young men who feel they don't matter. To someone like that it's easy to see why dying for a cause however moronic holds appeal. But that appeal will diminish if nobody knows about it. Will you completly stop it. No of course not. But I know that bombing Syria won't change shit either.

 

[nat4900]

A President cannot say it? Why? How does it help to not know who the enemy is? Should FDR have not named the Japanese and the Germans as the enemy?

Again, STUPID retort........Japanese and Germans means the citizens of THOSE countries...To say "radical Islam" is slandering a religion.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

That is not at all what I am saying, that's ridiculous. My point is to counter the ridiculous notion that this is all our fault. They were doing this shit to us in the 19th & 18th centuries.

I must have missed the part in my history classes when middle east countries invaded the United States

Did I say that? They were indeed seizing American ships, we had to pay them tribute, and they also sold some of the people taken into slavery.

Lemme guess... public school?

i just noticed something,,,i dont recall Bambi ever saying the racist term " Fried Chicken" before.

Makes me want Popeye's...

Bambi's approval would actually rise to 45% if he just said "Joy Blowhard Is nothing but fat white cracker bitch !!!"

 

[nat4900]

Did I say that? They were indeed seizing American ships, we had to pay them tribute, and they also sold some of the people taken into slavery.

Lemme guess... public school?

No, nitwit..... The Barbary Coast PIRATES were seizing American ships but that occurred in other parts of the world also and the pirates were asking for tribute or ransom....Basically thugs and criminals like the Somalis in recent years.
Regarding slavery, that was a European "economic boon"....Ask the Dutch and the Belgians.

 

[TooTall]

Unless every Muslim has been radicalized, (and they haven't) calling those that have been radical Islamist Terrorists doesn't or shouldn't offend the ENTIRE religion. Sane people know this, Morons don't.

Partially correct......HOWEVER, when you use the term "radical Islam" you need to understand that the adjective "radical" really mean extremist or reactionary....and when you COUPLE that adjective with Islam YOU ARE slandering the entire religion, offending Pakistani, Indians, Indonesians, Chinese and the entire population of the middle east and a good part of Africa.

I understand that the adjective "radical" differentiates between non-radicalized Islamists and Islamists that have been radicalized, regardless of what country they are from.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Because the word 'Jihad' has nothing to do with what they're doing. Islamic Terrorist is actually accurate.

You are wrong, so go hoe your row.

You must be trolling, but I'll explain anyway. Jihad is an Islamic term, referring to their duty to maintain their belief. The Quran actually states that Muslims are not supposed to fight non-believers except to defend themselves, and that when given the opportunity, they are supposed to bring them to safety. What they're doing isn't Jihad, it's undermining their own religion.

You are as always in error on this.

Radical jahadism is a term that defines the aberration of Islamic Jihad.

You are an aberration with a false agenda using a false term.

Go tend to your rows.

You're getting the definition of the word Radical wrong, too. It means "far reaching" or "thorough". What they're doing isn't far reaching or thorough, it's opposite to the teachings of their religion. Your term is inaccurate in both regards.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own aberration of terms and definitions and facts.

I gave you information from the Quran for the Islamic religion, I gave you dictionary definitions for the terms we're talking about. I don't see how that's an opinion. If you want to argue with the dictionary, go right ahead.

 

[OKTexas]

So by your logic, a cop saying a suspect is black is slandering the whole race, you're not too smart are you?

Check with someone...a grown up maybe......about the difference between "black"....a RACE, and "radical Islam" a RELIGION.

Hey you're the one that came up with the twisted logic that a declaration against specific individual or subset of a group slanders the group as a whole. Are you backing off that now? You do understand radical islamist are just a subset of islam and not necessarily representative of the whole religion, right? Are you and your dear leder saying muslims are too stupid to understand it?

 

[kaz]

A President cannot say it? Why? How does it help to not know who the enemy is? Should FDR have not named the Japanese and the Germans as the enemy?

Again, STUPID retort........Japanese and Germans means the citizens of THOSE countries...To say "radical Islam" is slandering a religion.

You support radical Islam? What is wrong with you? They are murdering people, lots of them.

And the "religion" is Islam, radical Muslims are a portion of them. It's not slandering the religion to identify the radical ones who are killing people, it's wrong to not identify them. And Obama goes way beyond that even in San Bernardino calling it "workplace violence." It's sick

 

[nat4900]

You support radical Islam? What is wrong with you? They are murdering people, lots of them.

And the "religion" is Islam, radical Muslims are a portion of them. It's not slandering the religion to identify the radical ones who are killing people, it's wrong to not identify them. And Obama goes way beyond that even in San Bernardino calling it "workplace violence." It's sick

You see....you become a TOTAL moron when you dare to ask another poster: "so, you support radical Islam"

Stupid and childish......(A-la Trump)

BTW, NO ONE stated that its "wrong to identify" the suicidal terrorists.....AND when Obama labeled San Bernadino "workplace violence" the maniac DID have an argument with a fellow worker and its was FIRST thought that it was an incident of violence in the workplace.

 

[kaz]

You support radical Islam? What is wrong with you? They are murdering people, lots of them.

And the "religion" is Islam, radical Muslims are a portion of them. It's not slandering the religion to identify the radical ones who are killing people, it's wrong to not identify them. And Obama goes way beyond that even in San Bernardino calling it "workplace violence." It's sick

You see....you become a TOTAL moron when you dare to ask another poster: "so, you support radical Islam"

Stupid and childish......(A-la Trump)

BTW, NO ONE stated that its "wrong to identify" the suicidal terrorists.....AND when Obama labeled San Bernadino "workplace violence" the maniac DID have an argument with a fellow worker and its was FIRST thought that it was an incident of violence in the workplace.

Read your own posts, idiot. You are saying naming "radical Islam" is calling "Muslims" terrorists. You are using Muslim and Radical Muslim interchangeably while whining when I try to separate them then you keep saying they aren't the same while you equate them

 

[nat4900]

Read your own posts, idiot. You are saying naming "radical Islam" is calling "Muslims" terrorists. You are using Muslim and Radical Muslim interchangeably while whining when I try to separate them then you keep saying they aren't the same while you equate them

Ask a grown up to help you with reading comprehension....I CLEARLY stated in the O/P that I can label whatever I wish to label them......BUT, the president should NOT.

 

[kaz]

Read your own posts, idiot. You are saying naming "radical Islam" is calling "Muslims" terrorists. You are using Muslim and Radical Muslim interchangeably while whining when I try to separate them then you keep saying they aren't the same while you equate them

Ask a grown up to help you with reading comprehension....I CLEARLY stated in the O/P that I can label whatever I wish to label them......BUT, the president should NOT.

To say "radical Islam" is slandering a religion.

This is what we are discussing. And it's only true if you equate Islam with radical Islam. Is the "religion" Islam or is radical Islam a religion? Make up your mind.

As for me, I think the "religion" is Islam, but we are fighting "radical Islam." Percentage wise a minority of Muslims, but as there are almost a billion Muslims, that still leaves millions of radical Muslims. I use those consistently.

You, not at all