Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Obama rules this joint.
Obama Explains Why He Doesn’t Use The Term ‘Radical Islam’ For Islamic State, Al Qaeda
.
Obama needs to refresh his Kor'an knowledge. There are a lot of verses advocating Jihad.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.![]()
There's a lot of Torah verses advocating genocide, among other horrible things. Doesn't mean that, if some Jews use them as inspiration for acts of wanton murder, we should give them legitimacy by calling the conflict against them a conflict against Radical Judaism.
That too. Perhaps Desdenelle needs to refresh his knowledge of the Qur'an, yes?
edited 14th Jun '16 1:33:17 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I'd argue the "radical" part of "radical Islam" is the important modifier. Though I'm a bit wary of using the term "extremist" because it implies "more so". "A particular pseudo-religious ideology that spun off from Islam" would be a more accurate.
Leviticus 19:34Do keep in mind that Jihad is also more traditionally in Islam the struggle with ones self against sin. Of course the holy book is going to promote that. A lot of the pro-Jihad passages in context are really just telling people not to sin so much and to grow their self control.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickDidn't the guy who shot up a black church draw some inspiration from the Bible? We didn't call him a radical Christian, we don't call terrorists who draw some inspiration from Jewish texts Radical Jews, generally we don't call extremists who are inspired by some Buddhist ideas radical Buddhists.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I don't recall hearing any religious connection to the Charleston shooting.
I'm also not sure if that's the case. There is a Wikipedia article called "Christian Terrorism", for example. I can think of a few radical Christians-WBC and the KKK, for example.
edited 14th Jun '16 1:37:51 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Y'know, I do appreciate president Obama's logic . It's in the same vein of something like referring to Osama bin Laden as "Laddie" or "Bibi". It weakens them because it doesn't give them the image they seek.
There was a discussion earlier in the thread about the Y'all Qeada guys wanting to be labeled terrorist to legitimize their acts as being against an oppressive government. I've reason they ultimately floundered is because rightly or wrongly, we didn't do that.
Same logic by the sound of it.
edited 14th Jun '16 1:45:06 PM by sgamer82
@Septimus: for example, Sura 9, verse 5:
I think we should call the child by its name — if it's Radical Islam we should call it that. If it's Radical Judaism (ie Baruch Goldstein) we should call it that. If it's radical Christianity (for example Joseph Kony) then we should call it that. If an attack is religiously-motivated then yes, it's religiously-motivated and we should address that. Saying that calling it "radical Islam" gives it religious legitimacy is not right because those guys already have religious legitimacy from their own people. On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.
I wasn't quoting in any particular order. *shrugs* Not to mention that the Qur'an is ordered from the shortest to the longest Sura, IIRC. ![]()
Dude, read the verses again. If "then kill the polytheists wherever you find them" is not telling people to kill other people, then I don't know what is.
More importantly, it's pretty clear that mainstream Muslims don't find the command to SEARCH AND DESTROY POLYTHEISTS to be binding and/or relevant to their situation, otherwise all of South and Southeast Asia would be a perpetual bloodbath. Or rather, they would have never managed to expand there the way they did, wich was through trade.
Who would "their own people" be, then? "Radical Religion X" implies that it's a legitimate, even extra-authentic, expression of Religion X, and that all followers of Religion X are "their people", instead of just their tiny fringe of pricks. What then, should we call the police in Ferguson practicioners of "Radical Law Enforcement"? Did Josef Mengele do "Radical Science"?
Desdenelle, I'm sure you're familiar with pricks picking and choosing bits and pieces of the Torah and Talmud and quoting it out of context to paint modern Jews as utter maniacs. That is very wrong. Try not to do the same stuff to others, please.
edited 14th Jun '16 2:10:54 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Science isn't an ideology, it's a methodology, so it has no place here. Law enforcement isn't an ideology either, it's a societal (I think this is the right word?) function.
As to "their own people": everything from Qaradawi to Yassin and Khamenei.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to argue isn't "all Muslims are terrorists/maniacs/murder advocates". The point is "Obama's refusal to refer to a thing by its name does nothing to delegitimise it". Basically what I'm saying is that a lot of religions have scripture that orders killing and maiming and whatnot and that radicals (or extremists, or whatever) can and do gain religious legitimacy by pointing at that scripture and saying "See? That's what Allah/Adonai/God wants!".

Anyone who thinks resurrecting internment camps in the United States is a good idea needs to spend some time with a history book.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.