Obama: Calling ISIL 'Islamic extremists' would accomplish nothing

[*Nately120*]

(06-15-2016, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-obama-more-angry-orlando-000000547.html

Obama is just angry because he knows his Muslim-lovin' ass is going to be the first one President Trump ships out of here.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 08:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think it's well known that I like Obama (btw I agree with Lucie that he's an atheist which only helps me like him), but I disagree with him on this and it's symptomatic of a major issue we're having in this country.  Words mean something.  Calling something by it's proper name is important as shared language and experience matter.  Using the proper words promotes greater understanding.  I've often told people I've been involved with professionally that I can write up a description of the same crime and, simply by using different, still accurate, wording I can make the situation seem much less serious or I can make it sound like a serial killing. 

I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh.  Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy.  However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US.  He opens the door for opportunists to make these attacks about something they aren't.  The ACLU lawyer who blamed this on right wing christians is a prime, and insane, example.  Yes, the far right are not friends of the gay community, but they don't condone killing them.  You get a pastor who rants about them, some even say they deserve death, but these instances pale in comparison, both in scope and intensity, with what goes on in many (most?) islamic countries every minute of every day.  Obama is wrong to conflate this killing with gun control more than, or even equal to, the dangers of religious extremism.  He is wrong to attempt to minimize the connection as it muddies the water and allows others to inject their pet issues into the subject.

Bottom line is, if Obama was honest about these attacks the dialogue regarding it would be a lot more focused.  A focused dialogue is more likely to bring a larger group of people to a consensus.  A consensus is more likely to accomplish meaningful action and change.  It's not that complicated and the correct words absolutely do matter.

This is one of the biggest annoyances for me when it comes to Obama.    Well said.   

Also glad to hear we have some common ground.  

[StLucieBengal]

(06-14-2016, 09:15 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Has he ever said "Christian fanatic" or "Religious fanatic"?

Are Christians on murdering rampages of non Christians for being non Christians? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-15-2016, 01:47 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This is one of the biggest annoyances for me when it comes to Obama.    Well said.   

Also glad to hear we have some common ground.  

We both like Obama and the idea that he's an atheist?  I would never have guessed you were with me on that.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 01:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We both like Obama and the idea that he's an atheist?  I would never have guessed you were with me on that.

Haha Na we will have to settle for he is an atheist and we think he is playing word games with this situation and any Islamic situation. 

Common ground even at its smallest is still worth mentioning since we don't see eye on much at all. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-15-2016, 01:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Are Christians on murdering rampages of non Christians for being non Christians? 

Because that's the only criteria where the phrase could be used?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 04:04 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Because that's the only criteria where the phrase could be used?

To be pertinent to the day's news.... Yes 

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-15-2016, 10:38 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: To be pertinent to the day's news.... Yes 

Pertinent would apply to the opportunity to use the phrase i asked about. Not a quantity.

My question applies to if there has been an opportunity to use the phrase after something like a loon bombing an abortion clinic.

[*Nately120*]

Outlawing Islam means only outlaws will be Islamic.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2016, 02:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Outlawing Islam means only outlaws will be Islamic.

I have just taken this a shared it with the world.  I'll send residuals if I get any....

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-15-2016, 02:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Pertinent would apply to the opportunity to use the phrase i asked about. Not a quantity.

My question applies to if there has been an opportunity to use the phrase after something like a loon bombing an abortion clinic.

I am not sure about the answer, but maybe we can lookup how the IRA attacks were covered maybe 15 years or so ago.  Or the Atlanta bombing.  

With that said, I do think it makes sense to identify this as "Islamic terrorism" or "Islam inspired terrorism" or "Radical Islamic extremism" or whatever, because I believe a positive side effect of this would hopefully be the sparking of discussion among Muslims worldwide on what "Islam" means, and how they can combat any hijacking of their faith by a very very tiny fraction of nutcases.  A worldwide Muslim condemnation of this idea of "death to non-believers" etc. would be a start.  I understand that this is happening to some extent, but there needs to be a more vocal attempt to reach these so-called lone wolves by mainstream Muslims.

[BmorePat87]

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/muslims-need-start-speaking-out-against-radical-is-3884

Quote:With every passing day, groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda continue to spread chaos and violence under the banner of Islam. The West can denounce these campaigns of destruction all we like, but if we want to prevent these groups from growing in power and influence, we need the support of the Muslim world. Now more than ever, Muslims need to speak out against these dangerous radicals, and if that’s something they’re already doing, nice.

The millions of peaceful followers of Islam have a responsibility to reject these fringe groups. They need to shout down the voices of those who pervert the name of Islam. Of course, if they’ve already started on that, cool. That’s exactly what we need. Something must be done to marginalize these factions—and for all I know, they’re way ahead of me on this—but in case they’re not, the time to act is now.

Has someone started meeting with prominent scholars? Well, if they did, then awesome. There you go. If they can use their knowledge and influence to expose the lies of these extremists—and hey, maybe someone is already rolling up their sleeves and doing exactly that, so kudos to them—it could make a huge difference in winning over future generations.

Also, it’s hard to say without details of their current involvement, but even if the Muslim community is taking action, is it enough? If it is, then good stuff. But if Muslims aren’t doing everything in their power to rebuke extremists, then they need to start. Now. The Muslim world must denounce these zealots. But again, they could be doing all of this and more, and if so, I love it.

The stakes are higher than ever, and if we want to stem the tide of radicalization, these dangerous, perverse interpretations of the Quran cannot go unchallenged. It’s time to show the world what Islam truly stands for. I urge all Muslims to step up and condemn these radicals—unless they already are, in which case I think that’s pretty sweet.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-15-2016, 03:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I am not sure about the answer, but maybe we can lookup how the IRA attacks were covered maybe 15 years or so ago.  Or the Atlanta bombing.  

With that said, I do think it makes sense to identify this as "Islamic terrorism" or "Islam inspired terrorism" or "Radical Islamic extremism" or whatever, because I believe a positive side effect of this would hopefully be the sparking of discussion among Muslims worldwide on what "Islam" means, and how they can combat any hijacking of their faith by a very very tiny fraction of nutcases.  A worldwide Muslim condemnation of this idea of "death to non-believers" etc. would be a start.  I understand that this is happening to some extent, but there needs to be a more vocal attempt to reach these so-called lone wolves by mainstream Muslims.

I dont have a problem labeling it as such. Same way i dont have a problem with christian fundamentalist when it applies. I think the discussion had more to do with obama and his non-usage. I was just wondering if he had used any similar phrase for any random "religious" act.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-15-2016, 06:01 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I dont have a problem labeling it as such. Same way i dont have a problem with christian fundamentalist when it applies. I think the discussion had more to do with obama and his non-usage. I was just wondering if he had used any similar phrase for any random "religious" act.

Seems you and I agree here, but to answer your question in regards to Obama, I don't think there were any non "Muslim" acts that might have fit the need for qualifying them during his term.  That's just a top of my head thought, but not sure.  Could be some "Christian" nut caused terror during his term, where he didn't qualify the action with religious coding, but I'm not sure.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-15-2016, 06:06 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Seems you and I agree here, but to answer your question in regards to Obama, I don't think there were any non "Muslim" acts that might have fit the need for qualifying them during his term.  That's just a top of my head thought, but not sure.  Could be some "Christian" nut caused terror during his term, where he didn't qualify the action with religious coding, but I'm not sure.  

That right there is where my question comes in.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 02:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Pertinent would apply to the opportunity to use the phrase i asked about. Not a quantity.

My question applies to if there has been an opportunity to use the phrase after something like a loon bombing an abortion clinic.

so is there a christian based Terror organization recruiting bombers?  

People try and compare these but it's not the same.   Muslims are killing people for not being Muslim....   

is there crazy Christians?   Of course.   Is it some terror network trying to eradicate the world of non Christians?  No. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-15-2016, 06:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: so is there a christian based Terror organization recruiting bombers?  

People try and compare these but it's not the same.   Muslims are killing people for not being Muslim....   

is there crazy Christians?   Of course.   Is it some terror network trying to eradicate the world of non Christians?  No. 

If a "christian" bombs an abortion clinic, arent they doing it because the people in the clinic are not following their "christian" beliefs?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 03:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/muslims-need-start-speaking-out-against-radical-is-3884

Muslims not speaking out and not pushing for reformation is why there is A negative opinion about Islam.  When a christian does something dumb and violent Christians are right there to condemn them.   Ofc they have had a reformation.  

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-15-2016, 06:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That right there is where my question comes in.

I understood that.  But in order to compare whether the call for religious terminology in characterizing a terror attack differs based on the religion (not whether it should differ, but somehow differs in a real situation), depends on instances where one religion was not mentioned and another was.  So, I will reduce this to saying that, it is my belief (off the top of my head) that we don't have two such events for comparison.  But, if anybody can provide me the other half of this comparison based on a real event, then that will color my view of (any) religious bias in the coded terminology.

The last known terror attack where "Christianity" may have been the root cause that I can remember was IRA related attacks. I do not feel confident in saying this statement however. We probably still see some Christian attacks against gay people in Africa and such, but there are no global based terror organizations that I can think of, where Christianity (or some perverse interpretation thereof) is the root of the problem

[StLucieBengal]

(06-15-2016, 06:14 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If a "christian" bombs an abortion clinic, arent they doing it because the people in the clinic are not following their "christian" beliefs?

No.  Maybe they want to stop murder.   

They never mention the abortion Facilities religious affiliation.    When a Muslim does their Muslims things ... They always say it's because they weren't Following Islam.  

I understand what connection you are trying to make here I just don't see it that way.   When we hear Christians are killing non Christians because they aren't Christians then that will be the same as what the Muslims are doing.