Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    16 Jun '16 12:301 edit
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-obama-statement-on-countering-violent-extremism/

    President Obama recently answered criticisms from Trump that he never uses the words, "radical Islam", because he thinks it is a "distraction" that will create needless agitation towards those who practice Islam, even though that is what it is.

    So is he right? Should we continue the PC charade of never saying "radical Islam"?
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    16 Jun '16 12:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-obama-statement-on-countering-violent-extremism/

    President Obama recently answered criticisms from Trump that he never uses the words, "radical Islam", because he thinks it is a "distraction" that will create needless agitation towards those who practice Islam, even though that is what it is.

    So is he right? Should we continue the PC charade of never saying "radical Islam"?
    It's interesting that members of the administration never seem to have trouble using the term "right wing extremists." I guess that doesn't distract or cause any problems for those who consider themselves right wing.
  3. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    16 Jun '16 13:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's interesting that members of the administration never seem to have trouble using the term "right wing extremists." I guess that doesn't distract or cause any problems for those who consider themselves right wing.
    Do you folks honestly think if Obama uses the term "Radical Islam" 3 times a month in speeches, and refrains from using "right wing extremists" altogether, that will really change anything?? Maybe I should start crying every time conservatives use the terms "tree hugging liberal" "liberal media" or left wing loonies" Reality Check: Nit picking the labels we put on people or things is not going to solve anything. 😲
  4. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55401
    16 Jun '16 13:28
    Originally posted by bill718
    Do you folks honestly think if Obama uses the term "Radical Islam" 3 times a month in speeches, and refrains from using "right wing extremists" altogether, that will really change anything?? Maybe I should start crying every time conservatives use the terms "tree hugging liberal" "liberal media" or left wing loonies" Reality Check: Nit picking the labels we put on people or things is not going to solve anything. 😲
    Obama picks his words carefully. He bends over backwards not to offend Muslims; he does not care if he offends conservatives.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    16 Jun '16 13:40
    Originally posted by bill718
    Do you folks honestly think if Obama uses the term "Radical Islam" 3 times a month in speeches, and refrains from using "right wing extremists" altogether, that will really change anything?? Maybe I should start crying every time conservatives use the terms "tree hugging liberal" "liberal media" or left wing loonies" Reality Check: Nit picking the labels we put on people or things is not going to solve anything. 😲
    It goes both ways bill.

    We are expected to think that it does not matter what the verbiage Obama uses when it is what he does not want to say, but it does matter regarding things that he does not wish to say, even if it is the truth.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    16 Jun '16 14:18
    Originally posted by bill718
    Do you folks honestly think if Obama uses the term "Radical Islam" 3 times a month in speeches, and refrains from using "right wing extremists" altogether, that will really change anything?? Maybe I should start crying every time conservatives use the terms "tree hugging liberal" "liberal media" or left wing loonies" Reality Check: Nit picking the labels we put on people or things is not going to solve anything. 😲
    You're not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has influence and is expected to lead. Refusing to even acknowledge the root of a problem makes the President look like he's intentionally wearing blinders. I get why he's doing it (not wanting to tick off a billion people is a reason that has some appeal), but pretending that radical Islam is not a major problem seems bizarrely naive.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    16 Jun '16 14:211 edit
    Obama's verbiage may not have an effect on terrorism, but it may have an effect on who may vote for people like him.

    I would compare it to people here who have started apologist threads for Mohammad by trying to smooth over him marrying a 6 year old girl etc. I think that the thinking is, if they can put Islam in a better light, it will help bring peace to a world in which there are over a billion Muslims.

    I would simply call it magical thinking.
  8. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    16 Jun '16 14:402 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    You're not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has influence and is expected to lead. Refusing to even acknowledge the root of a problem makes the President look like he's intentionally wearing blinders. I get why he's doing it (not wanting to tick off a billion people is a reason that has some appeal), but pretending that radical Islam is not a major problem seems bizarrely naive.
    President Obama gave the order raid Osama Bin Laden's compound that resulted in Bin Laden's death, and the capture of computers, and other vital intel that crippled his organization for a long time. he also gave the orders to launch bombing raids and rocket attacks against ISIS like we're we're doing now. People who pretend that radical islam doesn't exist don't do things like this. The right wing loves to paint President Obama as someone who sits on his hands and does nothing about terrorism, when in fact he's doing a great deal. I apologize deeply if he neglects to mention the words "radical islam" but I believe that actions (sometimes) speak louder than words. Frankly I would classify these actions as a President who is leading.

    It's easy to sit at our computers and criticize a sitting President (I know I've done my share of it) but none of us here have all the facts, so maybe things are really not going to hell in a handbasket as many claim.
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    16 Jun '16 15:01
    There's nothing wrong with "radical Islam" in of itself. It's the fact that there are those who will use any excuse to persecute Muslims, so the President must choose his words carefully.
  10. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55401
    16 Jun '16 15:111 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's nothing wrong with "radical Islam" in of itself. It's the fact that there are those who will use any excuse to persecute Muslims, so the President must choose his words carefully.
    There is something from with people who attempt to impose their literal interpretation of Islamic values on others especially when they use violence.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    16 Jun '16 17:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    You're not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has influence and is expected to lead. Refusing to even acknowledge the root of a problem makes the President look like he's intentionally wearing blinders. I get why he's doing it (not wanting to tick off a billion people is a reason that has some appeal), but pretending that radical Islam is not a major problem seems bizarrely naive.
    Peter Beinert has an excellent article in Haaretz explaining what right wingers are really doing when they claim the West is at war with "radical Islam":

    Bush, Cruz and Trump love the term “radical Islam” because it supposedly provides “moral clarity” to America’s anti-terror war. But there’s a problem. A term can’t provide “moral clarity” if you don’t know what it means. 

    “Radical” has two meanings. The first is “fundamental.” “Radical” comes from the Latin “radix,” which means “root.” When Omar Mateen murdered 49 LGBT night clubbers, was he reflecting the fundamentals of Islam? Many Republicans think so. A December 2015 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of Republicans, compared to only 30 percent of Democrats, believe that Islam is more likely than other religions to promote violence among its adherents. 
    If “radical” means “fundamental” or “essential,” then “radical Islam” is redundant. Saying America is at war with “radical Islam” is pretty much the same as saying that America is at war with Islam. That’s certainly what ISIS believes. And it’s not far from what Trump believes either. After all, the presumptive Republican nominee didn’t respond to the San Bernardino shooting by calling for the United States to ban “radical Muslims” from entering from the United States. If he had, he would have had to explain which Muslims are “radical” and which are not. Instead, he called for banning all Muslims. The implication is that all Muslims are “radical,” at least until proven otherwise.

    He concludes:

    Obama and Clinton say the United States is at war with ISIS (as well as its forerunner, Al-Qaida). That makes sense because Americans know what ISIS is. It also makes sense to define ISIS as a “totalitarian” Islamic organization, which uses terrorism to achieve its goals. It makes sense because since the middle of the twentieth century, political theorists have developed an understanding of what totalitarianism is. 
    “Radical Islam,” by contrast, can’t be coherently defined. It means either that Islam itself is the problem or it means that an unusual version of Islam is the problem — without ever defining what makes that version of Islam so bad. The phrase sounds menacing but is intellectually worthless. Much like the man who now puts it at the center of his presidential campaign.

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.724907
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    16 Jun '16 17:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    You're not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has influence and is expected to lead. Refusing to even acknowledge the root of a problem makes the President look like he's intentionally wearing blinders. I get why he's doing it (not wanting to tick off a billion people is a reason that has some appeal), but pretending that radical Islam is not a major problem seems bizarrely naive.
    What is interesting to me is how it is not "PC" to actually acknowledge the root of the problem - Western politicians and certain media portray "radical islam" as an extremely serious threat (which it obviously isn't), which then provides a sense of purpose for loonies wishing to suicide by cop in an "honorable" way.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    16 Jun '16 17:381 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    President Obama gave the order raid Osama Bin Laden's compound that resulted in Bin Laden's death, and the capture of computers, and other vital intel that crippled his organization for a long time. he also gave the orders to launch bombing raids and rocket attacks against ISIS like we're we're doing now. People who pretend that radical islam doesn't exist d ...[text shortened]... have all the facts, so maybe things are really not going to hell in a handbasket as many claim.
    I'm not taking any of those things away from him and I agree that Obama has not been soft on terror at all. We're talking about one very specific issue here; i.e., whether he's right to adamantly refuse to use the term "radical Islam" (a comparable term such as "militant" Islam would so as well to assuage no1's concern).
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    16 Jun '16 21:10
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-obama-statement-on-countering-violent-extremism/

    President Obama recently answered criticisms from Trump that he never uses the words, "radical Islam", because he thinks it is a "distraction" that will create needless agitation towards those who practice Islam, even though that is what it is.

    So is he right? Should we continue the PC charade of never saying "radical Islam"?
    Most writers here seem ignorant (or too stupid to comprehend) the distinction between
    the adjectives 'Islamic', which refers to Islam as a religion, and 'Islamist', which refers to
    various political ideologies supposedly based upon Islam.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    16 Jun '16 21:191 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack to Vivify
    There is something from with people who attempt to impose their literal
    interpretation of Islamic values on others especially when they use violence.
    Even when the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars say that ISIS does *not* represent
    true Islam, many ignorant Westerners speak of ISIS as 'radical Islam' as though it must
    represent the real core of Islam. It's like saying that the Westboro Baptist Church must
    be 'radical Christianity', as though it represented the most faithful Christians in the USA.

    And *if* ISIS did represent true Islam, why have most of the people that it has killed been Muslims?
Back to Top