Will not saying the name "Radical Islam" really keep us safe?

1. 0

   LoliHeyposted 8 years ago

   Will not saying the name "Radical Islam" really keep us safe?
   
   Obama says that saying the name "Radical Islam" won't make a difference.  Well, if it won't make a difference, why not just say the name?  The mentality here is that if we call it what it is (Islamic Terrorist attack), the "peaceful" Muslims will get mad and do more damage to us.  Well...being that there have been more terror attacks anyway, I'd say that mentality is wrong--wouldn't you?

   replyreport
2. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   I'll paraphrase Sam Harris on this. If we think that admitting that Islamic terrorists are following the Koran will lead to more moderate Muslims will become violent, we are either:
   A.  labelling all Muslims, even the officially moderates, as hair-trigger violent sociopaths because if you imply their faith is linked to the ones doing violence (which is both in their holy book AND per Mohammed's example). It is like saying if you falsely mistake a kid in rapper gear as a gangbanger, he will assault you and start selling drugs. If this is your assumption, you are admitting that all Muslims are violent and cannot be tolerated in the liberal secular world.
   B. engaging in a no-true-scotsman fallacy; in this case, you have to say several thousand times a year from beheadings of Buddhist school teachers in Thailand to buses blown up by Muslims in China to Egyptian Christians attacked after Friday prayers are all unrelated to Islam, even though they are per the Koran and Mohammed's example, by people screaming praises to Allah
   C. doing a great disservice to Islam by saying that the moderates who may reform the faith are really as violent as the violent ones, if you try to discuss how the core text of the faith is used in this way, while simultaneously enabling the evil by refusing to confront their motivations. We talk about the violent verses of the Bible often, but no one kills about the discussion of the interpretation. But silencing discussion about the violent verses and their interpretation DOES prevent a re-interpretation of the text.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      ptosisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Upvote for best answer!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ditt ptosis. The violent verses in the Bible were for a specific time and place, not mandates for general practice; the violent verses in the Quran are spoken in general terms, mandates for their believers to carry out today..

      replyreport
3. 78

   jlparkposted 8 years ago

   Ignoring the fact that any faith or belief system can have its Radicals is what will make us less safe.
   
   I've no issue with saying 'Radical Islam' as it's merely naming those of Muslim Faith who happen to be radicalised to be extremists. Often prone to violence.
   
   However, if we focus solely on 'Islam' as having Radicals we leave ourselves open to those who are radicalised to other faiths. Sure, you might think that the faiths you know best could never be radicalised, but don't realise that the violent verses in many Holy Texts can be taken by anyone who is fundamentalist or extremist to be taken literally.
   
   If you focus solely on one group and their violence, we will miss the danger of others.
   
   I can see people trying to use Orlando as a way to divide people against Islam, or anything else associated with it (LGBT etc) - division only makes hatred stronger. hatred breeds violence.
   
   We need to stay united.
   
   But in answer - no, can't see why not saying it would keep us safer. (Please delete if you feel it hasn't answered question)

   replyreport
   1. 83

      tamarawilhiteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in Philippines, Christians in Egypt and Pakistan, animists in Nigeria - all subject to terrorist attacks by Muslims. The problem is Islam's desire to conquer the world - and being afraid of that is not irrational.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      jlparkposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And peace loving non-extremist Muslims subjected to hate, abuse and violence from those who don't understand Extremist Islam is not all Muslims. Ignoring extremism can come from anywhere is dangerous too. Never said it was irrational, tho.

      replyreport
4. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   As long as the terrorists that are Muslim are professing it to be the will of Allah then repeating it as part of Islam has to be correct.
   The Radical part is associated with the terrorist execution of what these Muslim's believe is the will of Allah.
   
   The fear that using these two correct words together to describe Muslim Terrorists will incite Muslims doesn't make sense. The basic focus of these Terrorists is to kill anyone that is not them.
   
   They don't need an excuse.
   PC just emboldens them to more terror because they sense that makes us weak, and vulnerable. In essence, it does because it allows them to be taken out of the spotlight because PC doesn't allow them to be discriminated. Even to the point of tracking them down before they commit acts of terrorism.
   
   Terrorists are like primitives killing animals, and they go for the kill when they sense weakness, or helplessness. PC creates that condition.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Dont Taze Me Broposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Obama is a very sick narcissistic man which is beyond not being presidential. At a time when the nation is reeling from the worst shooting in United States history he chooses to  unleash a blistering verbal assault on Donald Trump and his proposal for a ban on Muslims entering the country, saying the suggestion violates the principles of American democracy and dismissing the “yapping” from “politicians who tweet.”
   
   This is what, the umpteenth time, Obama has railed against someone advocated to do exactly what HE has advocated in the past? I must point out that Obama himself as President in 2011 banned all people from Iraq from entering the country for a period of 6 months! Iraqi's are what? Last I heard they are Muslims. Obama did this for the same stated reasons Trump has advocated temporarily banning Muslims, to get a handle on terrorists disguised as refugees or immigrants coming into the country, in Obama's case, from Iraq.
   
   Obama also angrily pushed back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” calling it “loose talk” and misrepresenting why he is criticized for failing to describe Islamic terrorism for what it is. But of course this guy always has to establish a straw man to make an argument against as he can never win arguing against the truth, which is he can't wage a successful world wide war against an enemy unless he defines the enemy for who they are. Funny isn't it? He has endorsed Hillary Clinton who now also calls the terrorists "radicalized Islamists," I guess he thinks HIS candidate for succession to his throne is using "loose talk"  too? Or he must think she's a Republican!
   
   Anytime you analyze anything this guy says or does you can only come to one conclusion, he is a very sick man.

   replyreport
6. 60

   wingedcentaurposted 8 years ago

   Hi Lolita Monroe! How's it going?
   
   If by "us," you mean the citizens of the United States of America, I think we all know and appreciate the fact that no people on Earth are as "safe" as we are. We live with a level of security blanketing us that other peoples of this small planet could not even imagine dreaming of.
   
   Yes, I used that construction: "imagine dreaming of."
   
   The second thing to say, regarding "Radical Islam," the way you use the term---is that what we're really talking about is the globalization of apparently Islamic-inspired "terrorism" or insurgency.
   
   I use the word "insurgency" because it is pretty well known that the globalization of "Radical Islam" was not really a problem before the 1980s, when the United States recruited jihadists from the prison cells of Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East to combat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Before that there were Islamic covert action groups, primarily interested in revolution at home, creating national Islamic governments; they were not, for the most part, interested in "global jihad," or anything like that.
   
   Then National Security Advisor Zbignew Brzezinski wanted the Soviet Union---whom he hated, as a man of Polish descent---to experience their own Vietnam-like "quagmire." He called the trap the U.S. would set for the Soviets, "the bear trap."
   
   Let me recommend an excellent documentary film---which you can watch online, on YouTube---produced by Adam Curtis for the BBC. Its called "The Power of Nightmares." Its three hours and comes in three parts.
   
   If you're interested, here's a link to part one:
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTg4qnyUGxg

   replyreport