• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?

Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?

  • Total voters
    52
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

motive and risk assessment are very relevant. 50 years ago it was white supremacists far more than radical islam. As for this case, abortion and white supremacists had NOTHING to do with it, but there are some common themes. The causes for different kinds of extremism are both unique and shared. Denying the actual causes and the actual victims who were singled out - and the disparate risk of those victims - gets us nowhere in preventing a similar tragedy

and there seems to me so many causes that surely we can limit the risk:

AR15s sold over the counter to lunatics on terror watch lists, homophobia, radical islam, legal immigration for taliban supporters, lack of security at obvious target spots, lack of surveillance on obvious extremists, people with knowledge of impending massacre not doing anything, people who raise their kids as extremists not being held accountable or investigated, gathering spots of extremists not being monitored

some of these are easier to eliminate than others and some would cut down on unrelated crime. What's amazing to me is how it's permissible to sincerely address these threats in certain venues - like airports and casinos - but where actual victims are vulnerable, **** no, fbi is helpless as infants and that's the way it should be!
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

chromium said:
are you starting with the 'victim provocation' / 'all victims are equally innocent' double speak again?
Click to expand...

Speaking of double speak, as much as you might try to divorce it, you cannot suggest that some victims are less "innocent" and not also be suggesting that some just brought it on themselves (you know, like those Christians beheaded by ISIS not long ago) and I'd tell you what I really think of that thought process...but I believe I'll go to bed instead.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

X Factor said:
Speaking of double speak, as much as you might try to divorce it, you cannot suggest that some victims are less "innocent" and not also be suggesting that some just brought it on themselves (you know, like those Christians beheaded by ISIS not long ago) and I'd tell you what I really think of that thought process...but I believe I'll go to bed instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah like i have some affinity for ISIS for that, come on! They also throw gay men off buildings and kill little kids. They are bastards and i would never call anyone who receives their sick form of 'justice' anything but a victim

what was the phrase i used? Even in all caps a 2nd time? It was like HOWEVER MISGUIDED

i'm not sure you deserve to know my actual thoughts, and you'll for sure ignore it anyway, but i am against the death penalty. I even said bin laden should've been brought to trial. So this idea of yours i have less sympathy for certain unarmed people, it's just bull****
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

X Factor said:
Hey, great, if religion is completely irrelevant and all terrorists are the same can we go ahead and dispense with trying to silence things that might offend Muslims or immediately seeking to deflect criticism away from it when it happens? After all, you cite all this right wing and pro life terror and I'm pretty sure it's never occurred to you to ask in those cases "gee, what should the victims be doing to stop provoking it?"
Click to expand...

I have never asked what "provoked it", nor have I ever said any one should be silent on anything. Please stop failing.

It's also noticible that you sure don't seem to mind defining terrorists by their particular extremism (right wing nationalist and pro lifers) when it's not about Islam. The question really needs to be proposed to you, are you prepared to treat all extremism the same way?
Click to expand...

So basically, my point went totally over your head(would extreme environmentalist been an ok example to use for you, I would not want to hurt your tender sensibilities).
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

TheDemSocialist said:
Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?
Click to expand...

Yes. It states the truth. Nothing wrong with telling the truth.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kal'Stang said:
Yes. It states the truth. Nothing wrong with telling the truth.
Click to expand...

You honestly think these people don't know what the hell is going on?

This is a pretty good Vox article that explains the rationale behind the last two administrations being wary of tying Islamic extremists to the second-largest religion in the world as a whole, and why the constant GOP foot-stomping over it is ridiculous.

Why Republicans want Obama to denounce "radical Islam" — and why he won't do it - Vox

Long and short: We shouldn't start branding these scumbags as Islamic or Muslims because that's exactly what they want us to do. They WANT to foment a religious war with the West, and part of that is to draw moderate Muslims to their side by telling them the U.S. has declared war on them. What better way than for our government to start officially branding these guys with the Muslim label?
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

All I know is that the JV team is kicking azz all over Europe and the USA.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

RetiredUSN said:
All I know is that the JV team is kicking azz all over Europe and the USA.
Click to expand...

Are they? I guarantee exponentially more of them are getting blown to hell in the sands of Iraq than they're taking out.

The sympathizers who perpetrate attacks such as Orlando are receiving little to no material support from the idiots getting bombed in the ME. Functionally speaking, they're not part of ISIS.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kobie said:
Are they? I guarantee exponentially more of them are getting blown to hell in the sands of Iraq than they're taking out.

The sympathizers who perpetrate attacks such as Orlando are receiving little to no material support from the idiots getting bombed in the ME. Functionally speaking, they're not part of ISIS.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that influence isn't a dangerous tool?
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

RetiredUSN said:
Are you telling me that influence isn't a dangerous tool?
Click to expand...

Of course it is; however, considering the Orlando shooter had also pledged allegiance to Islamist groups who are actively opposed to ISIS, isn't it likely that at least some are just saying "yay ISIS" when they act out their sick murder fantasies?

Claiming ISIS is "kicking ass" is laughable.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kobie said:
Of course it is; however, considering the Orlando shooter had also pledged allegiance to Islamist groups who are actively opposed to ISIS, isn't it likely that at least some are just saying "yay ISIS" when they act out their sick murder fantasies?

Claiming ISIS is "kicking ass" is laughable.
Click to expand...

No....it's not laughable at all. Count up all the lone wolf attack killings that have happened throughout Europe and the USA. The JV team originated a lot of the reaching out to lone wolves through the internet.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kobie said:
You honestly think these people don't know what the hell is going on?

This is a pretty good Vox article that explains the rationale behind the last two administrations being wary of tying Islamic extremists to the second-largest religion in the world as a whole, and why the constant GOP foot-stomping over it is ridiculous.

Why Republicans want Obama to denounce "radical Islam" — and why he won't do it - Vox

Long and short: We shouldn't start branding these scumbags as Islamic or Muslims because that's exactly what they want us to do. They WANT to foment a religious war with the West, and part of that is to draw moderate Muslims to their side by telling them the U.S. has declared war on them. What better way than for our government to start officially branding these guys with the Muslim label?
Click to expand...

A Vox link...they're about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. The whole "we can't use the words "radical Islamic terrorists because it might offend X country or our allies" is bunk. Tell me, what happened when the French Premier declared war on Radical Islam after the attacks there? Was there a huge outcry against France for that? Did Saudi Arabia stop selling them oil? Did the terrorists even respond in an elated way at being called something that you think that they "want us to do"?

French Premier Declares ‘War’ on Radical Islam as Paris Girds for Rally

How about when British Home Secretary Theresa May mentioned "Islamist extremists"? Was there a huge outcry against Britain for that? Did Saudi Arabia stop selling them oil? Did the terrorists even respond in an elated way at being called something that you think that they "want us to do"?

'Islamist extremists,’ phrase rejected by Obama, embraced by allies

You'll note that even Afghanistan's President calls it for what it is in that second link.

Everything that Vox said, and everything that Obama is saying, and everything that people objecting to this telling of truth regarding Islamic Radicals is pure bunk.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kal'Stang said:
Yes. It states the truth. Nothing wrong with telling the truth.
Click to expand...

That's ****ing stupid. Go tell some one their wife is fat. Nothing wrong with telling the truth, right?
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Redress said:
That's ****ing stupid. Go tell some one their wife is fat. Nothing wrong with telling the truth, right?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about fat wives are we? We're talking about a government that refuses to state the truth despite our allies having done so and evidence showing that no mass outcry against them has happened for it.

If you were to face a murderer that just killed your family and that murderer was sitting in a court room or behind bars what would you call them? "violent prone" ... or ... "murderer"?
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

The issue is a non-issue...but that seems to be the main thing Donald Trump and his followers are interested in.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Kal'Stang said:
We're not talking about fat wives are we? We're talking about a government that refuses to state the truth despite our allies having done so and evidence showing that no mass outcry against them has happened for it.

If you were to face a murderer that just killed your family and that murderer was sitting in a court room or behind bars what would you call them? "violent prone" ... or ... "murderer"?
Click to expand...

Gotta love people who scramble to move the goalpost, like no one will notice...
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Redress said:
Gotta love people who scramble to move the goalpost, like no one will notice...
Click to expand...

So no real rebuttal? And I didn't move the goal posts. I simply made the equivalent comparison. You're example failed in that and failed in determining the difference between telling a white lie to save a wife from anxiety and telling a lie meant to obfuscate facts regarding murder and terrorists based on something that reality shows to not be true.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Redress said:
Gotta love people who scramble to move the goalpost, like no one will notice...
Click to expand...

55039027.jpg
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

IMO, it doesn't make much of a difference if he says "radical islamic terrorism" or just "terrorism" (which George W. Bush (R) said most of the time, btw, but the righties didn't care back then).

I don't see how it'd hurt either, though.

One wording might encourage the idiots who blame all Muslims for the terror attacks alike, while the other wording might encourage those who fail to recognize that there indeed is a problem with large parts of Islam ... I don't see which is worse. So perhaps words indeed matter much less in the end, than deeds and policies.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

cpwill said:
His refusal to say it is sort of immaterial. His refusal to recognize it is the problem.
Click to expand...

I liked this post even though I only agree with half of it.

His refusal to say it IS immaterial.

But do you truly, honestly believe that he doesn't recognize it?
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Mr Person said:
He's increased just about every Bush anti-terror program other than waterboarding.
Click to expand...

:shrug: that is incorrect. In fact, authorities have been tightly curtailed, decision-making centralized, and risk-aversion almost deified to the point of tying the CT communities' hands.

Incidentally, that's not just plain ole cpwill saying that (though, from my perch, I have observed it first-hand), it's three of his own former Secretaries of Defense.

NSA, Drones, etc.

Are the hugely increased drone strikes really because he doesn't "recognize the problem"? What explains them, then? He hates the color white?
Click to expand...

The increase in drone strikes is because he prefers them to raids that might pick up someone worth interrogating... but whom he would then have to figure out how to interrogate without, you know, the "G-word". It's a major ongoing gap.

This whole thing is one of those utterly meaningless wedge issues proferred by the right.
Click to expand...

Hm. I don't think that him "saying the words" is all that important at all - in fact I think it has no effect whatsoever. I think that the point is rather that he won't say the words because he doesn't wish to acknowledge the problem.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

TheDemSocialist said:
Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anything?
Click to expand...

Yes. It uses language to steer the public consciousness over time into one that see's "radical Islamic terrorism" as a problem and will be more open and willing to government action against it, while also fostering a society more hostile to it. Or, more broadly explained:

From a strategic standpoint by the primary operatives pushing the message, which then just filters down to others ideologically aligned as simply "how things should be", they believe it'll do the same thing liberals believe continually referring to these incidents as "mass shootings" instead of "mass murders" will do.

Language drives the societal reaction. Repetition drives recognition. Framing creates reality.

Continually referring to these situations as mass SHOOTINGS, continually focusing on the "Shooting" and the "firearm" portions of things, as opposed to focusing more heavily on them being "murders", or "killings", or other such also accurate words allows for the focus and attention to continually subconsciously be placed onto firearms. This benefits the goals of the left who are seeking to create a level of social "awareness" and unease regarding firearms in the public. Specifically in hopes of conditioning the public into becoming more and more accepting to the notion of greater regulation on firearms in the name of public safety.

Similarly, those on the right that have manufactured the initial impetus for the outrage over "radical islam" desire it for a similar reason; as a means of controlling message and conditioning the public. The more you focus on "radical Islam" following things like this, the greater awareness within the population. The better you condition society to view that which you keep speaking about (radical islam) as the problem that needs to be dealt with in these situations. The more you say "radical islam", the more it ties together a subconscious emotional response to the listener between this kind of violence and radical islam. The hope being that over time, as the public becomes more accepting and focused on the notion that "radical islam" islam is a problem, then legislation aimed at dealing with said problem would be more likely to garner support.

Calling out "radical Islam" isn't going to make ISIS or Al-Qaeda turn around and go home, just like continually harping on "Mass Shootings" or using ambiguous phrases like "Assault Weapons" isn't going to make violence stop. What it is aiming at doing is winning the war of words in hopes of manipulating the public into a broader concern for and negative reaction towards "radical islam", to set the stage for continued legislative pushes to deal with it in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Objective Voice said:
So, let's get this straight...

Before you can kill the enemy and inform our allies as to who we're really fighting, we have to name the enemy specifically.

How exactly would calling "terrorist" radical Muslim extremist, Islamic terrorist, jihadist or radical Islam change who wel kill on the battle field or how? I think it's safe to say that since the on-start of the global war on terror when reports began to circulate all around the world that American troops and/or bombers were killing terrorist in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, our allies knew we recognized exactly what the problem was, who the treat was and that the situation was serious. The above comments tells me some people are simply part of the talk-radio/political pundit echo chamber as opposed to getting the facts for themselves.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware there was a checklist.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Redress said:
That's ****ing stupid. Go tell some one their wife is fat. Nothing wrong with telling the truth, right?
Click to expand...

Speaking of stupid, that's so not the same thing. Now, I know your reply to me will be, "did I saaaay it was the same thing?" and, yes, you really pretty much did. I do think the issue surrounding it has been blown out of proportion but to compare this to calling your wife fat is just silly.
 
Re: Does The President Using the Label "radical Islamic terrorism" Accomplish Anythin

Redress said:
Extremism, yes. That is where this goes wrong. It is not islamic extremism, nor religious extremism, but extremism itself. When people take things too far, they can start to justify to themselves terrorism. So by limiting ourselves to any type of extremism, we are only tackling part of the problem. White nationalist extremists, and anti-abortion extremists, and others have all been, and will continue to be a threat, so why exclude them when talking about the threat of terror?

And further, and you can take my word or not on this, but I can tell you as an outsider, than you do kinda have to walk on eggshells when dealing with religion. People are very sensitive about the topic, and can very easily take things not as they are intended. This is true pretty much of all religions. And it is also true I think, on some issues, for every one. We all have our areas where we are more sensitive than maybe we should be. As an example, when people talk about my family members, I find I very easily take offense, even when none is intended.

The whole calling it radical islamic terrorism thing is appealing. It is a simple solution. It sounds great, easy to understand. Requires seemingly nothing. And as usual when dealing with complex issues, the easy solution is rarely the right one. If there was a nice, easy, tidy solution we would have by god found it now. We have a ****load of really bright people busting ass trying to figure out how best to attack the problem, and they have been doing it for years, and the problem is worse than when we started.
Click to expand...

On extremism and radicalism we are in agreement, however, I'd assert that extremist and radical acts done in the name of a religion are in fact inexorably tied to that religion. With your statement "It is not islamic extremism, nor religious extremism" it seems that you don't believe this, and I disagree.

Yes, there is extremism, and it encompasses all types of extremism, of which religious extremism is one, which then in turn encompasses Islamic religious extremism, into which many of the actions that radical militant Muslim fundamentalists take properly fall. The taxonomy of this is the same as the taxonomy we find in the taxonomy of biology.

I'd further assert that other religions do not require this "walk(ing) on eggshells when dealing with (their) religion", as much as Islam seems to demand from everyone. I think it's far more prevalent here due to the extremist fundamentalism adhered to by some / most. Which other religions prohibit images of their prophet and demand murder of those who draw it? I can't think of a single other religion who's demands extend into the sublime such as this.

It is unreasonable and extremist to expect the West to give up one of their most cherished rights, the right to free speech and expression, as appeasement to religious fundamentalists of any religion.

While the US and the world may have "a ****load of really bright people busting ass trying to figure out how best to attack the problem", their progress has been hampered, and in fact significantly set back in the extreme with the unwise and premature pull out of US troops from Iraq (tracing back to Obama's unwillingness to get an Iraqi SoF agreement) and the utterly inept handling of the Syrian situation, the two which led to the raise of ISIS. It should also be noted that the utterly inept handling of Libya is also a contributing factor. Obama's and Hillary's fingerprints are all over this mess we have now, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

So yes, it "was a nice, easy, tidy solution" (situation), more or less stable, at least far more manageable than it is now, until the US troop pull out, and needless antagonism caused by being called "The JV Team".

Yes, this is Obama's and Hillary's legacy in the Middle East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom