hilary says magic word "radical islamic terrorist" problem solved no more terrorism
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
I already stated and acknowledged that, dtard. Already on this forum. At least she might be coming to some grips with this. Probably won't do much about it.
One thing for sure. Is the weak turd in the oval office will be gone in January.
I have a solid gold picture frame. I am going to take your quote
and place it inside the frame. I am going to hang it over my bed.
so that it will be the first thing I see each day when I awake. that
way I will start every day off with a laugh.
then -
in about a year when you are railing about hills I am going to pull it
out of the frame and post it on here to remind you of what you said.
DONT BE SILLY - ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY
RADICAL ISAMIC TERRORISTS 3 TIMES AND POOF
THEY'RE GONE.
A Nazi is a Nazi. A killer is a killer. A thug is a thug. A radical islamic terrorist is a radical islamic terrorist.
You must first identify your enemy and call them for what they are and understand them.
You're joking about the absurdity of suggesting that simply calling it what it is will actually help.
I think it's just absurd to suggest that NOT calling it what it is was somehow going to protect us or be beneficial in any way because we avoided "offending" moderate Muslims.
Calling it anything other than just plain terrorism is pointless. Calling it radical Islamic terrorism implicates to some degree all the followers of Islam, of which perhaps 99% are willing to live peacefully with others.
I acknowledge that theory and think that is a legitimate concern, I just respectfully disagree with it.
I think calling it what it is, Radical Islamic Terrorism, allows for open dialogue to help facilitate discussion about what to do about it. How can you help find a solution with all options on the table without even calling it by its actual name? If you're too scared to use the proper adjective, then how can you discuss some uncomfortable truths regarding the Radical Islam problem or some even more unsavory (but ?helpful?) ways to deal with it. We need all discussion on the table here, and continuing to use soft language to avoid implication (note, I think the word "radical" takes that implication away though from peaceful Muslims - we don't call it Islamic Terrorism, we call it Radical Islamic Terrorism, but that's just my opinion) I think is not addressing things head on.
I know that if 1% of my religion were terrorists I wouldnt want them to be called radical Christian terrorists, as they wouldn't actually represent my religion. And calling them that helps absolutely nothing.
Again, I think this is valid, I just think reasonable people can disagree.
Certainly, we can all acknowledge that Islam (even a radicalized version) is related to these terror attacks, correct? We've seen Pew data that suggests that even "moderate" Islamic people support Sharia law. We've seen videos where a room full of young European Muslims declare themselves moderate but still support things we in the West would consider barbaric and radical.
So if we want to talk about solutions to the problems (and no I'm not talking about Nukes...I'm willing to consider anything, even hand holding outreaches, interfaith coalitions, etc) we have in the West (Paris, Belgium, Orlando, San Bernadeno), then how can we even have the appropriate dialogue if we can't even utter the adjective that links all of these terrorist attacks together?
Last edited:
Has calling much of the terrorism in the u s by the name of far right terrorism resulted in any improvement?
Haven't most terrorists on our soil been registered democrats?
ISIS has proven to be a bit more than the JV team, as our 1st gay commander in chief called them.
You're changing the subject.
Has it helped by our President not daring to say the word "Islamic" when describing it in the past? By being careful with words (and not calling a Spade a Spade) we are no better off with Mulim/West relations and Radical Islamic Terrorism than we were in years prior.
I don't perceive this "far right" terrorism as much of a threat to the West as that of Radical Islamic Terrorism. I choose to call it that so that I can communicate with other people effectively so that we can discuss (ie kill time at work/home on the internet) options by using all the words that can describe it or share a common bond between the events. I hope our leaders call it that so that we can figure out why this happens and what to do about it.
I've been absolutely shocked with how many LGBT are just now waking up to the notion that even Moderate Muslims think their way of life is an abomination punishable by Sharia law. Part of their ignorance is this notion by the media and the left that if we don't talk about these uncomfortable truths then somehow everything will be OK. I disagree with this notion, it's time to talk openly and honestly about this.
No, I'm not changing the subject. If calling a spade a spade brings about better results, then calling right wing terrorism by that term should have brought about an improvement to the situation.
I'm not offended by that term, and maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't perceive there to be a big problem (at least not as big as Radical Islamic Terrorism) in this country with right wing terrorism.
You got some proof to back up it's only 1%?
alpha it is way more than 1%. eg will say this is a bad source but here you go buddy.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
London (CNN)More than half of British Muslims (52%) think homosexuality should not be legal, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools, according to a new survey of British Muslims. ...the general public was markedly more liberal on issues related to homosexuality, with 11% of those surveyed saying homosexuality should not be legal.
The survey also found British Muslims more likely than the general population to sympathize with terrorism "as a form of political protest," although support was very low -- 4% of Muslims said they sympathized
The Muslims interviewed were also more likely to support the ISIS objective of creating an Islamic state, regardless of the methods involved, with 7% expressing support
Muslims were also much more likely to say Jewish people had too much power in Britain (35% agreed)
it was acceptable for Muslim men to have more than one wife (31% of Muslims agreed)
a woman should always obey her husband (39% of Muslims agreed)
About 2.71 million Muslims live in England and Wales, according to the 2011 census
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/
CNN... probably not a "valid" source...
The survey also found British Muslims more likely than the general population to sympathize with terrorism "as a form of political protest," although support was very low -- 4% of Muslims said they sympathized
The Muslims interviewed were also more likely to support the ISIS objective of creating an Islamic state, regardless of the methods involved, with 7% expressing support
Muslims were also much more likely to say Jewish people had too much power in Britain (35% agreed)
it was acceptable for Muslim men to have more than one wife (31% of Muslims agreed)
a woman should always obey her husband (39% of Muslims agreed)
About 2.71 million Muslims live in England and Wales, according to the 2011 census
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/
CNN... probably not a "valid" source...
so there are currently around 190,000 Muslims living in the UK that "support the ISIS objective"...
and around 108,000 that "sympathize with terrorism as a form of political protest"...
read that a couple of times and let it sink in.....
and around 108,000 that "sympathize with terrorism as a form of political protest"...
read that a couple of times and let it sink in.....
Up until the Orlando massacre, right wing extremism had killed more americans on U S soil than radical islam. (Since 911)
Yeah!----- Fort Hood was just workplace violence and the Boston bombing was just objection to marathon closing the streets.
Could you be any more mentally disordered and still allowed to roam the streets? Somewhere there a Straitjacket with your name written all over it.
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=956bef2af19e6e700bca9649cb749bdb&oe=57FDA006
Last edited:
They sure don't seem to want to clean their own house. I am not buying the peaceful muslim BS. You would think the peaceful muslims would get tired of this and clean up this embarrassment. What are they ever doing to stop it?
Not a damn thing.
I have no problem saying the KKK, Christian Identity movement, abortion clinic bombers, etc are radical Christians that pervert Christianity. Why do you have a problem with admitting that?
You are ignorant of history. From the abolition movement to the civil rights movement, it was church leaders and other Christians that denounced the "Christian" arguments for slavery and stood against the KKK and shamed them for their beliefs. And that was at a time when it is pretty much OK in a lot of places to think blacks were inferior just as God wanted it.
If one percent of Muslims really are the problem, then I would think pushing most Muslims to fight the problem would be beneficial.
I am very willing to bet that fundamentalist Muslims make up a very high percentage of Muslim immigrants in the last 20 to 30 years...many of the educated, moderate ones got the hell out of their homelands when this shit really started taking root in the 50s to 70s.
He has been acting like he doesn't see my posts. He is a fragile lil man.
I have no problem admitting that, I have a problem that they're considered by some to be actual Christians.
