Anything wrong with the phrase "Radical Jihadists"?

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,051
27,783
136
I understand the reasoning of the President not using "radical Islam". He doesn't want to acknowledge terrorists are really practicing Islam. We also don't want to alienate Muslims we are going to need to win the ideological part of the war. Republicans use the phrase Muslim terrorist so often I believe it helps fuel an increase in violence against Muslims.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...cases-across-the-nation/ar-AAgaSli?li=BBnb7Kz

Republicans continuously harp on his lack of using their phrase. Like that will change the number of drone strikes. Wouldn't the phrase "radical Jihadist" do the job of identifying the bad guys? Why not tie terrorism to their actions, not religion?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
They are practicing Islam.

Obama and the libs are as bad as the climate change deniers on this subject.

Their actions are driven by religion, its stupid to ignore that.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,051
27,783
136
They are practicing Islam.

Obama and the libs are as bad as the climate change deniers on this subject.

Their actions are driven by religion, its stupid to ignore that.

Or is their interpretation of religion?

Were the Planned Parenthood terrorist actions driven by Republican rhetoric? He quoted their often used phrase of "no more baby parts"

I say mass killing to effect political change qualifies as terrorism. No different at PP or San Bernardino
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Because to the ones complaining "Islam" without the preceding "radical" is incomplete. It's like "conservative Christian," just one or the other isn't the real thing. And the real Muslims are the radical ones, otherwise they don't have an excuse to for their bigotry.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,317
5,746
136
I understand the reasoning of the President not using "radical Islam". He doesn't want to acknowledge terrorists are really practicing Islam.
dafuq?
So radical Christian is A.O.K.?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Or is their interpretation of religion?

Were the Planned Parenthood terrorist actions driven by Republican rhetoric? He quoted their often used phrase of "no more baby parts"

I say mass killing to effect political change qualifies as terrorism. No different at PP or San Bernardino

one has a current worldwide pattern, the other doesn't.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
dafuq?
So radical Christian is A.O.K.?

If the person being referenced adheres to a radical interpretation of Christianity then there wouldn't be any reason to be offended.

EDIT: I think moderate or noncommittal jihadists would be more concerning.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,317
5,746
136
If the person being referenced adheres to a radical interpretation of Christianity then there wouldn't be any reason to be offended.

EDIT: I think moderate or noncommittal jihadists would be more concerning.
QFT unless they were just radical with no militarized actions...right?
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Or is their interpretation of religion?

Were the Planned Parenthood terrorist actions driven by Republican rhetoric? He quoted their often used phrase of "no more baby parts"

Do me a favor.

Google Floyd Lee Corkins,
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,051
27,783
136
Do me a favor.

Google Floyd Lee Corkins,

Looks like a domestic terrorist. What is your point?

The San Bernardino shooters were I think hybrid, one domestic. The wife may not have been a citizen.

Each had different motives. One had overseas inspiration.

The point I've made many times I'm more likely to be killed by the likes of a Dylan Roof then a Muslim terrorist.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
What group has killed more people in the US since 911?

Islamic
Right wing/paramilitary


Take your time

You can't reason with dumb. The bigotry and hatred for all things not exactly like him is too strong. His overactive fear center has taken complete control of his miserable life.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,425
6,086
126
You can't reason with dumb. The bigotry and hatred for all things not exactly like him is too strong. His overactive fear center has taken complete control of his miserable life.

If he met himself in the dark, he would demand that he be bombed into extinction, that's just how dangerous his fear of what he actually is would be.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
The problem as I see it in terms of the line of reasoning being employed by the president is as follows.

By refusing to acknowledge and differentiate between radical islam and just plain old Islam (i.e. moderate islam) inevitably this steers people to believe and/or causes them to make the assumption that these terrorists are just practicing plain old Islam. So in effect and via the plain effort of just being "Politically Correct" he is in fact just cementing basises and suspicions of people who might be on the fence toward muslims in general.

Then again this rabid political correctness in refusing to distinguish and denote these terrorist as RADICAL islamists or jihadists is just more PC bleed over from the insane political correctness that attempts to label ILLEGAL immigrants/aliens undocumented immigrants (as if they just forgot their residency papers at home) or more minding numbingly as plain old immigrants .
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,722
1,454
126
Looks like a domestic terrorist. What is your point?

The San Bernardino shooters were I think hybrid, one domestic. The wife may not have been a citizen.

Each had different motives. One had overseas inspiration.

The point I've made many times I'm more likely to be killed by the likes of a Dylan Roof then a Muslim terrorist.

That's it.

Some questions, with possible answers.

What is the basis for the citizen panic -- validated by Trump -- in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting? ANSWER: the uncertain threat of being killed.

Based on the history of the last three to five years, what are the odds of being killed by a "radical jihadist" in America, relative to being killed (shot, blown up) by someone who is not a radical jihadist? ANSWER: Add up all the killed and wounded for similar shootings: the Lanza, Holmes, Roof, Dear and others. The Farook-Malik killings only equal those of Charles Whitman, who beat their score in the number wounded. But the recent shootings over the last few years cumulatively reduce Farook-Malik to a fraction of the overall risk evident from those incidents over time.

Yet the public is running scared about ISIS, while thumping its chest calling for muscular action in the middle east.

In other words, the gut-feeling echoed in forums and news is all about the trouble in the middle east, the terror attack in Paris and other perceptions. As far as the other events, it seems like the public says "What? Me Worry?"

If the focus includes the domestic terrorist or nutcase attacks, we have to address a cause so we can mitigate the risk. What causes would that involve? What causes have been discussed? How easy would it be to "show action" in those cases?

In contrast, getting worked up about Syria, ISIS, Boko Haram -- and Muslims -- provides an "easy" cause, and we can send troops and spend money without limit. That is, such is the thinking about it.

But if the method is the same, the weapons are the same, the risk is indistinguishable for either type of shooting -- we're scaring ourselves, we're letting politicians amplify that anxiety, and we'll be more likely to make the same big mistakes -- again.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,425
6,086
126
Hatred of Muslims only goes up during election time when politicians gin up fear to get votes. Hatred of Muslims actually went down after 9/11.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
That's it.

Some questions, with possible answers.

What is the basis for the citizen panic -- validated by Trump -- in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting? ANSWER: the uncertain threat of being killed.

Based on the history of the last three to five years, what are the odds of being killed by a "radical jihadist" in America, relative to being killed (shot, blown up) by someone who is not a radical jihadist? ANSWER: Add up all the killed and wounded for similar shootings: the Lanza, Holmes, Roof, Dear and others. The Farook-Malik killings only equal those of Charles Whitman, who beat their score in the number wounded. But the recent shootings over the last few years cumulatively reduce Farook-Malik to a fraction of the overall risk evident from those incidents over time.

Yet the public is running scared about ISIS, while thumping its chest calling for muscular action in the middle east.

In other words, the gut-feeling echoed in forums and news is all about the trouble in the middle east, the terror attack in Paris and other perceptions. As far as the other events, it seems like the public says "What? Me Worry?"

If the focus includes the domestic terrorist or nutcase attacks, we have to address a cause so we can mitigate the risk. What causes would that involve? What causes have been discussed? How easy would it be to "show action" in those cases?

In contrast, getting worked up about Syria, ISIS, Boko Haram -- and Muslims -- provides an "easy" cause, and we can send troops and spend money without limit. That is, such is the thinking about it.

But if the method is the same, the weapons are the same, the risk is indistinguishable for either type of shooting -- we're scaring ourselves, we're letting politicians amplify that anxiety, and we'll be more likely to make the same big mistakes -- again.

Hell, the Police are a bigger threat in the US than Islamic Terrorists.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
This whole "Why doesn't he(or they) say x" when he/they say something either equivalent or very close to x is such a vacuous point.
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
What group has killed more people in the US since 911?

Islamic
Right wing/paramilitary


Take your time

Why are leaving out other options? Go here and tell me what group, by race, has killed more:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...f_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

That is just from 2013. Is it wrong to point out stats? You guys make it sound like that. We shouldn't just look at one group or another. We have a big enough gov't to handle multiple groups. We certainly should deal with right wing/paramilitary groups that are dangerous as well as credible threats from Radical Islam. And fix the damn situation with all of the other types of groups that are either killing each other or others.