Is Trump saying "radical Islam" helping?

[Inmate Trump]

Just wondering because it doesn't seem to have made any difference at all.

[Confused Democrat]

Yes.

The term Trump used to use, “Islamic,” means anything having to do with the religion of Islam. The term he used instead (unsuccessfully), “Islamist,” refers to matters relating to the political project of reorganizing the state and society in accordance with the laws of Islam that can be deduced from Islamic texts. Put another way, “Islamic” is a bigger umbrella that signifies anything tied to the religion, while “Islamist” is a smaller umbrella that covers issues tied to political Islam.

By using the term “Islamist extremism,” the Trump White House is implicitly acknowledging that there is such thing as moderate Islamism, which is a real phenomenon.

source: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/22/15674392/trump-speech-islamic-islamist-saudi

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, it helped him get elected, so it served its purpose. Other than that, no.

[MasterJedi]

Either way he already failed on his pledge to defeat ISIS in 30 days. I thought he knew more than the generals?

[Dr. Arch]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

We are? Last I checked, there was another terrorist attack yesterday. Seems pretty status quo.

[The_Doctor]

As I always saw it, identifying our enemy always helps. Radical Islam as a term takes away the pretense we're merely fighting terrorism, not a vicious ideology that is rooted in a Medieval reading of Islam that prioritizes killing others. Islam is not the problem; but let us not minimize it, we are fighting a subset of Islam that is radicalized, bent on jihadist violence, and we must confront it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

We are? Last I checked, there was another terrorist attack yesterday. Seems pretty status quo.

They've been driven out of Iraq entirely. Internationally ISIS is a bigger threat than on the ground in Syria at this point.

[GoTfan]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

We are? Last I checked, there was another terrorist attack yesterday. Seems pretty status quo.

They've been driven out of Iraq entirely. Internationally ISIS is a bigger threat than on the ground in Syria at this point.

Yup. They've been defeated in Iraq and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they pretty banged up in Syria too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

We are? Last I checked, there was another terrorist attack yesterday. Seems pretty status quo.

They've been driven out of Iraq entirely. Internationally ISIS is a bigger threat than on the ground in Syria at this point.

Yup. They've been defeated in Iraq and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they pretty banged up in Syria too?

ISIS has gotten weaker, but still controls parts of both of those countries and is still very dangerous.

[America Needs R'hllor]

We can already feel it helping, folks! Every time someone says "radical Islamic terrorism" ISIS loses a stronghold! Yuge wins, #MAGA!

[Inmate Trump]

Didn't he defeat them in 30 days after taking office?

Wasn't he supposed to do that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Didn't he defeat them in 30 days after taking office?

Wasn't he supposed to do that?

He realized the military wouldn't have anything to do for the next 47 or 95 months, so he decided to have ISIS attack Manchester and Marawi.

[Badger]

Uhh, we're just starting to beat ISIS now? But maybe that's because Hillary is finally not fighting them for once in her adult life.

We are? Last I checked, there was another terrorist attack yesterday. Seems pretty status quo.

They've been driven out of Iraq entirely. Internationally ISIS is a bigger threat than on the ground in Syria at this point.

Yup. They've been defeated in Iraq and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they pretty banged up in Syria too?

Thanks Obama.

[Badger]

Yes.

The term Trump used to use, “Islamic,” means anything having to do with the religion of Islam. The term he used instead (unsuccessfully), “Islamist,” refers to matters relating to the political project of reorganizing the state and society in accordance with the laws of Islam that can be deduced from Islamic texts. Put another way, “Islamic” is a bigger umbrella that signifies anything tied to the religion, while “Islamist” is a smaller umbrella that covers issues tied to political Islam.

By using the term “Islamist extremism,” the Trump White House is implicitly acknowledging that there is such thing as moderate Islamism, which is a real phenomenon.

source: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/22/15674392/trump-speech-islamic-islamist-saudi

All true. Which makes him repeatedly slipping and switching his references to "Islamic" terror rather than "Islamist" halfway through his speech in Saudi all the more problematic. Not only can't the genius stay focused for the length of a single damn speech, it demonstrates he genuinely doesn't begin to perceive the difference (like a large segment of voters).

Neither of which, of course, should come as any surprise.

[I Won - Get Over It]

There is clearly problem with the religion. It should be reformed or destroyed.


That's why 'islamic' or 'islam' are the only terms that should be used when describing this phenomenon.

[Badger]

There is clearly problem with the religion. It should be reformed or destroyed.


That's why 'islamic' or 'islam' are the only terms that should be used when describing this phenomenon.

....

Reformed or destroyed?!?

Would you say the same thing because of Christianity due to fundamentalists?

Genuine question: Ignorant, genocidal a$$hole, or both?

[Inmate Trump]

There is clearly problem with the religion. It should be reformed or destroyed.


That's why 'islamic' or 'islam' are the only terms that should be used when describing this phenomenon.

Um, no.

The extremism does not define the religion.

Do Catholic priests molesting children define Catholicism?

Did the Crusades define Christianity?

[I Won - Get Over It]

There is clearly problem with the religion. It should be reformed or destroyed.


That's why 'islamic' or 'islam' are the only terms that should be used when describing this phenomenon.

....

Reformed or destroyed?!?

Would you say the same thing because of Christianity due to fundamentalists?

Genuine question: Ignorant, genocidal a$$hole, or both?

LOL for the comparison with Christianity. Yes, both are religions. Yes, both have fundamentalists. LOL

If you compared Christiany-1400 to Islam-2017, I'd be OK.
If Christianity-2017 lookes like Christiany-1400, I'd would want to destroy or reform it as well. This can not be tolerated.

We take a look at Egypt. 74% wants Sharia as official law. Of team 86% wants 'death penalty' for leaving Islam. 74% * 86% = 63% of all Muslims in Egypt want a death penalty.

Read the whole study. Doesn't terrify you? Does it look like Christianity-2017 or 1017?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

[Skunk]

There is clearly problem with the religion. It should be reformed or destroyed.


That's why 'islamic' or 'islam' are the only terms that should be used when describing this phenomenon.

....

Reformed or destroyed?!?

Would you say the same thing because of Christianity due to fundamentalists?

Genuine question: Ignorant, genocidal a$$hole, or both?

LOL for the comparison with Christianity. Yes, both are religions. Yes, both have fundamentalists. LOL

If you compared Christiany-1400 to Islam-2017, I'd be OK.
If Christianity-2017 lookes like Christiany-1400, I'd would want to destroy or reform it as well. This can not be tolerated.

We take a look at Egypt. 74% wants Sharia as official law. Of team 86% wants 'death penalty' for leaving Islam. 74% * 86% = 63% of all Muslims in Egypt want a death penalty.

Read the whole study. Doesn't terrify you? Does it look like Christianity-2017 or 1017?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

So your response to them trying to force their beliefs on people is to force your beliefs on them. Got it.

[Illiniwek]

Omg yes everything is fixed now thanks to our Dear Leader saying "radical islamic terrorism." Damn it Obama, why couldn't you have just done the same; he must be a terrorist enabler.

[Santander]

LOL for the comparison with Christianity. Yes, both are religions. Yes, both have fundamentalists. LOL

If you compared Christiany-1400 to Islam-2017, I'd be OK.
If Christianity-2017 lookes like Christiany-1400, I'd would want to destroy or reform it as well. This can not be tolerated.

The problem with Christianity in the 1400s was infighting, corruption, and impiety, not fundamentalism. In fact, you could argue that the Reformation was in many ways a fundamentalist movement to restore the authority of scripture and faith over church traditions or hierarchy.

I don't fear radical Islamists because they're fundamentalists. I fear them because their imperialist goals conflict with our values and interests.

[krazen1211]

Why don't we have a Ban, exactly?


Link

British and French intelligence have information that Salman Abedi, 22, had been to Syria, although it was unclear if he was part of a larger network of attackers, French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb said Wednesday.

[pbrower2a]

Obama did not use the phrase "radical Islam", but he did use the phase "jihadi Islam". Any heterodox manifestation of Islam could be radical and even be aggressive in its proselytization.

The objectionable forms of Islam are those that would murder people, even if the form of Islam is not particularly radical. It may surprise people to know that neither Moammar Qaddafi nor Satan Hussein were 'radical Muslims'. They were simply killers. The Shiites who have taken over most of Iraq with the blessing of Dubya are much more radical than Satan Hussein ever was. They are also very ruthless in judging ISIS for murdering people. Tough luck, ISIS! 

[Associate Justice PiT]

Obama did not use the phrase "radical Islam", but he did use the phase "jihadi Islam". Any heterodox manifestation of Islam could be radical and even be aggressive in its proselytization.

The objectionable forms of Islam are those that would murder people, even if the form of Islam is not particularly radical. It may surprise people to know that neither Moammar Qaddafi nor Satan Hussein were 'radical Muslims'. They were simply killers. The Shiites who have taken over most of Iraq with the blessing of Dubya are much more radical than Satan Hussein ever was. They are also very ruthless in judging ISIS for murdering people. Tough luck, ISIS! 

     The thing is, Hussein and Qaddafi were not exporting terrorism (at least at nearly the clip that ISIS has been). Not coincidentally, I would note that the United States should not have gotten militarily involved with either nation, considering that I would prefer that we not appoint ourselves the Cops of the World.

     "Radical Islam" is a term whose usage is commonly understood to refer to those who endorse Jihad or otherwise want to enforce a strict conservative interpretation of Islam, even if it is not proper in the strictest possible sense. It's about as good a term to use as anyone is going to coin for that matter. I have heard people use "Political Islam", which I think gets more to the point of what the problem is here, but I suspect that term would be immediately misunderstood if the President were to use it.