Officials were NOT allowed to said "radical islamic" under Obama

Interesting discussion here. One question I have to ask is though... How different would Christian Culture (and the Christian Doctrine that drives it) be if Martin Luther wouldn't have reformed the Catholic Church and laid the groundwork for what now is the modern day Christian Church? Would Christianity have been something more dark and scary if reformation didn't happen to modernize the text & translations?

I personally think the Christian Church here in America especially drives a big part of our politics (point right towards the Souther Baptist Convention which is a major power in the Republican party), but as it comes to culture, you make a great point about Conservatives NOW embracing highly UN-Christian ideals in politics. And even in history (slavery being a big one) there is certainly times when America went anti-Christian for periods so I think you have a point here about Culture, Religion, and Politics.

To me, it seems to be a Culture of convenience to your own human drives to either use your religion, or to put it aside for a second to be an A$$hole.

 

Ehhhhhh the order does not say non-Muslims would be prioritized, it says religious minorities seeking refugee status will be prioritized which doesn't seem entirely unfair as ISIS is targeting these minority groups and they are heavily persecuted. And religious minority from Syria also includes Shi'ite Muslims...

 

Let's see... do I take the word of McMaster, someone on the front lines who knows what he is talking about? Or do I take the position of ATW? Man, what a difficult choice. Next time I need to get my oil changed, I think I'll go to CVS and ask one of the checkout people to do it for me instead of Jiffy Lube. Wait, I forgot- we're not supposed to listen to the generals.... apparently, some people know more than them.

After all this time, we're going to argue with ATW about anything Islam? Umm... OK, yeah, maybe we'll get him to see that you can't use the tactic of "Your religion sucks and you need to denounce it" if you really want to get something done about terrorism. Or, maybe we can all become Dallas Mavericks fans instead. Seems just as plausible.

 

you first

 

wtf are you talking about. I didn't invent public restrooms and separation by sex. how dare you.

you didn't directly answer my question so I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

 

Step 1) dandorotik makes an angry post, trying to play all internet tough guy
Step 2) dandorotik suffers total meltdown
Step 3) dandorotik apologizes
Step 4) dandorotik forgets that Step 1-3 happen regularly, and does the same thing again

 

Well why would two generals from two straight administrations disagree with you?

 

You could have done one better- you could have revived one of those meltdown posts.

Your answer clearly indicates that you do not want to admit that your entire multi-year agenda on Islam is to illustrate how awful it is and how the best strategy would be to convert all the Muslims to either a Christian religion or atheism. I'm not stating anything that isn't obvious to anyone who has been on this board for years. That is your agenda. It's OK to admit this.

My opinion is that you are not going to eradicate Islam, and that the clear target should be the extreme practitioners of that religion (a.k.a. terrorists), rather than the religion itself. That is based upon what the people who know best feel is the correct course of action.

You will continue your agenda, of course. But you have utterly failed above b/c (1) my post was not angry in any way, shape, or form; (2) there is no meltdown- which, I would say, is better than someone who goes looking up other people's information on LinkedIn and posting it to this forum; (3) there is no apology needed - what I said is clearly known to everyone here; and (4) there is no repeat.

You're welcome.

 

He chooses to hate the Islam religion- that's fine, he has the right to dislike what he wants. Using it as a means to combat terrorism is counter-productive. That is where emotion over logic / insight fails. I'm not a particularly big fan of organized religion, but as it is deeply meaningful to others, I have to consider that if I am to work with that community on something such as terrorism. If I'm going to a Jewish community to help them deal with terrorist threats, I'm going to sit down with them and talk about it while fully respecting their religion - and maybe we'll have some Matzo ball soup and gefiltefish along with some Dr. Brown's Cherry Soda and Cheese Blintzes (worked in a Jewish deli in Houston for 5 years - loved everything except Dr. Brown's Cel-Ray soda- ugh.). That's the best way to solve the problem. The whole "Obama doesnt' say, 'Radical..." is such a ridiculous partisan concept that does not do anything to solve the terrorism problem.

 

I'm of Pakistani decent and I really don't see how it is offensive to call it "radical islamic terrorism." Somebody needs to explain it to me. The word RADICAL is clearly a differentiator. If you went around calling it "Islamic terrorism," then yes, it would probably be offensive (and incorrect). But regardless of what you call it, you need to be able to identify the problem if you intend to solve it.

Sure, it is a minority within Islam which commits these acts of terror (hence the term radical) BUT they do use Islam to justify their actions (even if they are taking **** out of context, etc). How are we going to solve a problem if we aren't even willing to discuss the issue? The issues only got worse under the Obama administration so the way in which they were going about it wasn't really accomplishing much.

I have family who lives in a country which can bombed by these people literally anywhere at any moment. I'm sure every level-headed brown person wants them defeated (which is every Muslim I have spoken to and that is a lot since it encompasses all of my family and quite a few of my friends/friends of friends/family of friends/etc). I have yet to meet somebody who is offended by the term "radical Islamic terrorism" tbh.

 

I forgot

Step 3.5 dandorotik makes a dramatic farewell post, promising to never post again and
Step 3.6 dandorotik posts under a different user name for a month and
Step 3.7 dandorotik comes back under his old user name, ignoring his promise to leave for good.

You're welcome .

 

Well you missed the whole point, because the point is that the term is inaccurate, therefore misleading to ourselves, therefore not solving the problem.

 

Again, I must have hit close to the heart, and now you are offended. Perhaps you should rethink your position if you are offended getting called out for it. YOU want to deny a transgender person from using the bathroom of their choice. Own responsibility for that.

No worries, doesn't effect me in the least. Put me n ignore if you like. But again, know that your hypocrisy has been called out. Not surprising you would choose to duck this... seems to be an increasingly common response by Trump supporters (Trump ducking the WH Correspondent's Dinner, republican congressmen ducking townhalls, etc).

 

Seek professional help.

 

That's a good point. I'm still not sure of the need to include Islam in there- but something to consider, for sure.

 

How is the term inaccurate?

Are they not using Islam to justify their actions? Are they not claiming they are doing it in the name of God?

Whether or not they are actually following the Quran isn't what I am talking about (because they are not). You have extremism in every religion which uses the religion to promote their cause. In this particular instance, they are killing thousands of people per month.

 

You being a rational person see three separate words: radical, Islamic and terrorism.

Unfortunately when the far right, social conservatives see the same three words, they see: all Islamic practioners are terrorists and they want to kill me and my family.

As an example, Trump's travel ban on people who happen to be from a Muslim majority is really meant to be an attack on Islam, since "all Muslims are terrorists who want to kill me and my family".

We in the USA have these existing political narratives. The far right has one narrative which says that basically "all Muslims are terrorists" is a single nonreductive phrase. And to disagree with the narrative like Obama did is to coddle terrorists.

 

dandorotik approaching step 2...

 

Seek professional help.