"Radical Islamic Terrorism"

[interchange]

I don't have a problem with the term "Radical Islamic Terrorism". I'm not sure whether it's good or bad for the US to use it officially, but it is not in itself discriminatory against the religion of Islam. Many people who advocate its use are otherwise discriminatory, but that does not invalidate the words themselves. It is clear fact that there exist supporters of mass terror all the way to the nation-state level whose basis of action is a radical interpretation of Islam, and these supporters are extremely active and subject of a whole variety of attempts at mitigation of their threat.

The existence of non-Muslim terrorists, even terrorists based on radicalized views of other religions neither invalidates attaching Islam to the description of terror groups nor degrades the values of non-radicalized Muslims.

Separately, I believe a key piece in fighting "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is alignment with non-radicalized Muslims and Islamic states to identifying a common enemy and separating radicalized terror groups from association with peaceful sovereign states. I'm all for using the most effective words to accomplish this goal.

 

[agent00f]

I suppose some are dead set on keeping their fingers in their ears.

Shrug.

True enough, many degenerates are too dishonest to admit those real enthusiastic about killing muslims or other politically expendable minorities are predominantly christian.

 

[Jaskalas]

I just deplore...

That falls short of describing your one track obsession with the subject. Your "with us or against us" Bush'ism, or your recent post:

Personally I'm all for the methods of dealing with this problem that the most radical of your peers have proposed.

One does not speak of righteousness, of no compromise, of no diplomacy, without hatred and violence in their heart. I know because I've been there. There is nothing righteous in giving up on "others", of taking the easy way out. You are condemned for whatever final solution you've got cooked up in your head.

 

[agent00f]

That falls short of describing your one track obsession with the subject. Your "with us or against us" Bush'ism, or your recent post:


One does not speak of righteousness, of no compromise, of no diplomacy, without hatred and violence in their heart. I know because I've been there. There is nothing righteous in giving up on "others", of taking the easy way out. You are condemned for whatever final solution you've got cooked up in your head.

Pretty comical of someone who can't understand what's being said to imply they're somehow the sophisticated one. For example, proposing that hypocrites swallow their own prescription makes for an apt and effective argument. Ponder for a while where you stand when even the degenerates can grasp what that means.

 

[jackstar7]

I suppose some are dead set on keeping their fingers in their ears.

Shrug.

--Current events quiz--

Which lives are worth more: those killed in Egypt or those in Iraq?

 

[xthetenth]

--Current events quiz--

Which lives are worth more: those killed in Egypt or those in Iraq?

Trick question, that's a divide by zero error. The only ones that matter are in places where the news media can make us westerners identify with the dead.

I suppose some are dead set on keeping their fingers in their ears.

Shrug.

Okay. Tell us in full what exactly is so obvious that people are keeping their fingers in their ears about it. Tell us in excruciating detail what the precise thing is.

 

[Victorian Gray]

--Current events quiz--

Which lives are worth more: those killed in Egypt or those in Iraq?

Neither, The important deaths are in places like France and Germany and the US.