In the aftermath of the Orlando club incident I have heard numerous journalists and radio talk show hosts blasting Obama for not referring to this as a "radical islam" but is this a fair attack or is this just politics finding any angle to attack an opponent?

Words are very powerful and sometimes the absence of certain words are equally powerful. So is Obama's reluctance to using the term Radical Islam a bad decision? Say too much too soon and there is a problem. Say not enough too late and there is a problem. Should Obama have even said anything so soon into an investigation? Police are likely still piecing this huge puzzle together but we have politicians and pundits saying things as if they know the whole picture.

Since the president is not just the commander in chief but also a statesman he has to balance a lot of areas when he speaks. I can understand people not liking Obama's reluctance to use the phrase but I also understand there are reasons to avoid the phrase as well. Obama as a leader has to work to keep social order. There is a danger following such events that the emotionally charged situation will end up causing chaos and there is certainly historical examples of this. Order has to be maintained and rights have to be protected so the president definitely needs to refrain from speaking in a way that could stir emotions too much. The obvious fear I would have is that individuals would take it upon themselves to take vengeance attacking innocent muslims here or that the government would end up violating the civil rights of its citizens as they did with Japanese internment camps. On top of those domestic concerns there are tenuous international relationships. Use a phrase that pisses off a bunch of muslims and it makes it more difficult to have good relations with muslim majority countries. Whether accurate or not it is sometimes wise to avoid language that could be inflammatory.


A couple of questions to ponder:

Does using the term radical Islam really change anything?

If Obama used the term Radical Islam would it make these terrorists less likely to attack us?

Could using the term cause more harm than benefit if it is just used as propaganda to create more radical islam type terrorists?

I have seen similar issues when it comes to using the word terrorist vs workplace violence but in a mass shooting case can't they one in the same?

DNFTT

I hear the FBI is still trying to figure out the motive.

In the aftermath of the Orlando club incident I have heard numerous journalists and radio talk show hosts blasting Obama for not referring to this as a "radical islam" but is this a fair attack or is this just politics finding any angle to attack an opponent?

Words are very powerful and sometimes the absence of certain words are equally powerful. So is Obama's reluctance to using the term Radical Islam a bad decision? Say too much too soon and there is a problem. Say not enough too late and there is a problem. Should Obama have even said anything so soon into an investigation? Police are likely still piecing this huge puzzle together but we have politicians and pundits saying things as if they know the whole picture.

Since the president is not just the commander in chief but also a statesman he has to balance a lot of areas when he speaks. I can understand people not liking Obama's reluctance to use the phrase but I also understand there are reasons to avoid the phrase as well. Obama as a leader has to work to keep social order. There is a danger following such events that the emotionally charged situation will end up causing chaos and there is certainly historical examples of this. Order has to be maintained and rights have to be protected so the president definitely needs to refrain from speaking in a way that could stir emotions too much. The obvious fear I would have is that individuals would take it upon themselves to take vengeance attacking innocent muslims here or that the government would end up violating the civil rights of its citizens as they did with Japanese internment camps. On top of those domestic concerns there are tenuous international relationships. Use a phrase that pisses off a bunch of muslims and it makes it more difficult to have good relations with muslim majority countries. Whether accurate or not it is sometimes wise to avoid language that could be inflammatory.


A couple of questions to ponder:

Does using the term radical Islam really change anything?

If Obama used the term Radical Islam would it make these terrorists less likely to attack us?

Could using the term cause more harm than benefit if it is just used as propaganda to create more radical islam type terrorists?

I have seen similar issues when it comes to using the word terrorist vs workplace violence but in a mass shooting case can't they one in the same?

Are the wife and kid gone again? Seems like another trolling post on your part.   

NO

And heres why,

We are not facing Radical Islam in this time of Trouble. We are facing Islam,

That seems a bit strong to say but stay with me, Throughout history all religion has been based on the belief that its beliefs and teaching are the only way and any one who disagrees should convert of die. Most religions as they have aged have found a moderation to this. A balance of you dont follow our beliefs thats ok but your going to go to hell (as apposed to were going to send you there)

Now what we have with Islam is a large majority have become moderates and as such they have twisted the words of the Koran to fit a more moderate belief system, Then you have True Muslims who follow the original teachings of Islam which is Kill everyone who does not believe and god will reward you.

So We are not fighting Radical Islam we are fighting the fundamental teachings of Islam itself,



(my apologies that was written in a rush my wife is bitching at me to clean windows)

Let's make sure this topic is worthy of debate then.

With regards to Islam, I simply adopt the libertarian American value system which gives everyone freedom to believe and say whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do so. (The 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion, belief, speech, etc. is actually a side-benefit of the main purpose of the 1st Amendment, which is the freedom to criticize the government and educate one's fellow citizens about it. There is no 1st Amendment freedom in communist China, or probably in neo-soviet Russia).

Thus, for whatever religion, I honestly and sincerely do not care what a person thinks or does, as long as he or she doesn't impact other people's rights.

So, whether it is the Christian crusaders, or Islamic adherents, or Scientology fanatics, whoever infringes upon another person's right is in the wrong. Simple.

How do you determine when one party's exercise of their 1st Amendment rights impacts another person's rights? What defines "other people's rights"?

As for response to the topic questions: 1) Yes 2) No 3) Troll 4) What

How do you determine when one party's exercise of their 1st Amendment rights impacts another person's rights? What defines "other people's rights"?

As for response to the topic questions: 1) Yes 2) No 3) Troll 4) What

If they do anything to prevent another person from exercising 1A rights, then that is infringement. Killing someone is an example of such infringement.

Other people's rights? Simple, the whole Bill of Rights.

DNFTT

Really? Instead of "trolling" some other thread or derailing some other thread I start my own for an issue I want to discuss and you call me a troll? Is this not the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black?

NO

And heres why,

We are not facing Radical Islam in this time of Trouble. We are facing Islam,

That seems a bit strong to say but stay with me, Throughout history all religion has been based on the belief that its beliefs and teaching are the only way and any one who disagrees should convert of die. Most religions as they have aged have found a moderation to this. A balance of you dont follow our beliefs thats ok but your going to go to hell (as apposed to were going to send you there)

Now what we have with Islam is a large majority have become moderates and as such they have twisted the words of the Koran to fit a more moderate belief system, Then you have True Muslims who follow the original teachings of Islam which is Kill everyone who does not believe and god will reward you.

So We are not fighting Radical Islam we are fighting the fundamental teachings of Islam itself,
(my apologies that was written in a rush my wife is bitching at me to clean windows)

But don't you think there is a danger to painting with such a wide brush? Obviously Sharia law gives us good cause for concern, but what about the muslims who think Sharia is not a valid teaching of Islam? Such as how christians don't accept the book of merman as valid. If we paint with a wide brush we may offend people. No don't get me wrong, I don't care if someone feels offended but in a practical and realistic sense this could affect the number of terrorists and terrorist supporters.

Consider that Trump level comments on muslims could be used as propaganda to galvanize muslims towards terrorism instead of away from it. Muslim terrorists aren't just sneaking in from the middle east, we are now seeing that they being created within our own borders by US citizens. Since they aren't born terrorists that means they become radicalized over time. If we label them as enemies I worry that we push them more towards feeling like they are alien, that America won't accept them, that americans think they are their enemy. The words we use could mean the difference between an individual becoming a terrorist or a good american citizen.

Really? Instead of "trolling" some other thread or derailing some other thread I start my own for an issue I want to discuss and you call me a troll? Is this not the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black?

yup

Obama didn't need to use Radical Islam.
He could use Islamic extremists.

No matter how you slice it this is the current terroristic threat we face. (Along with all of the West)

I think extremists are separate from Muslims in general.

Just like Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics and kill the doctors, or shoot up Jewish centers or hate gay people are separate from everyday Christians.

How do you detect the extremists ?
Therein lies the problem.

Obama at some point needs to acknowledge that radical Islam extremists are committing terrorist acts on US soil.
Homegrown or not.

That's 63 dead in the last 2 terrorist attacks in less than a year.
By Radical Islamic Extremists.

When should our president acknowledge this?
Or should he just blame guns ?

Really? Instead of In addition to "trolling" some other thread or while I'm also derailing some other thread I rarely start my own unless I'm completely losing the debate for an issue I want to discuss drag out forever and ever and you call me a troll? Is this not the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black?

Fixed that for ya!

No need to thank me!  It was my pleasure!!   

Does using the term radical Islam really change anything?

If Obama used the term Radical Islam would it make these terrorists less likely to attack us?

Could using the term cause more harm than benefit if it is just used as propaganda to create more radical islam type terrorists?

I have seen similar issues when it comes to using the word terrorist vs workplace violence but in a mass shooting case can't they one in the same?
[/quote]

Doe it make a difference for your doctor to say what life threatening disease or condition you have or just blame tobacco or sugar?  Muslim terrorism is a cancer.   Period!

Fixed that for ya!

No need to thank me!  It was my pleasure!!   

Thank you for your absolutely useless contribution Fap Jackson.

Thank you for your absolutely useless contribution Fap Jackson.

I said, no need to thank me,

but you're welcome!   

Obama didn't need to use Radical Islam.
He could use Islamic extremists.
No matter how you slice it this is the current terroristic threat we face. (Along with all of the West)
I think extremists are separate from Muslims in general.
Just like Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics and kill the doctors, or shoot up Jewish centers or hate gay people are separate from everyday Christians.
How do you detect the extremists ?
Therein lies the problem.
Obama at some point needs to acknowledge that radical Islam extremists are committing terrorist acts on US soil.
Homegrown or not.
That's 63 dead in the last 2 terrorist attacks in less than a year.
By Radical Islamic Extremists.
When should our president acknowledge this?
Or should he just blame guns ?

All good points but how does one go about addressing it while trying to maintain a good relationship with the muslims that are not the problem?

I don't know Obama's true motivation but it does seem plausible he refrains from either of those terms because he ants to avoid alienating muslims and if that is the case I cannot really fault him for those intentions. I am not sure I would take the same course of action but it is hard to know for sure what words will produce what reactions.

My overall feeling is that Obama runs to make a comment too soon or says too much. As a leader I think he could have expressed sadness and a resolution for justice but completely left out motive. That can always be addressed later when more facts are known. He has shot from the hip many times before and said too much but has also delivered very good speeches as well.

Or maybe he is just a secret muslim....

You missed my point.

It's not Muslims.

It's radical Islamic extremists.

2 different entities.

Islamic extremism is definitely a threat that needs to be acknowledged.

It's a dirty guerrilla war that is now upon our shores.
After the second attack in less than a year, there's no question about it. IMO.

How do we work with the Muslim community who are not the problem?
We need them to flush them out. (The extremists)

You missed my point.

It's not Muslims.

It's radical Islamic extremists.

2 different entities.

Islamic extremism is definitely a threat that needs to be acknowledged.

It's a dirty guerrilla war that is now upon our shores.
After the second attack in less than a year, there's no question about it. IMO.

How do we work with the Muslim community who are not the problem?
We need them to flush them out. (The extremists)

I was originally replying to London 808 who sort of equated the two, hence my comments. I do personally agree with you that they are 2 different entities.

I agree we do need the good muslims to help flush out the bad muslims, but we also need to gain the trust of the good muslims in order to do it. That is where choosing the right words comes into play I think.

Where in the term "radical Islamic extremist" is the word Muslim used?

They're not Muslims.

That's the point.

Muslims call them Daesh.