Stay Classy Dems

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, May 14, 2010.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg

    Apparently the administration has put out a no use of "radical islam" mandate even though its the driving factor that links all of these recent terrorist strikes including 9/11. This guy should get a heisman trophy for side stepping.

    This is about as good as switching the name terrorism to "man-made disasters", the word play that this administration does is magical.
     
  2. Macaddicttt macrumors 6502a

    Macaddicttt

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #2
    I believe you've missed the whole idea of a "stay classy" thread...
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Ummm...got a transcript? And evidence that the administration has forbidden the use of said term?
     
  4. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is -- in -- in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

    HOLDER: Because of?

    SMITH: Radical Islam.

    HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's -- one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

    SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

    HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people...

    SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

    HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious...

    SMITH: OK. But all I'm asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

    HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a -- a version of Islam that is not...

    SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

    HOLDER: No, I don't want to say anything negative about a religion that is not...

    SMITH: No, no. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about radical Islam. I'm not talking about the general religion.

    HOLDER: Right. And I'm saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it...

    SMITH: But...

    HOLDER: ... and who espouses a radical version...

    SMITH: But then is -- could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?

    HOLDER: I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.

    SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?

    HOLDER: Could that have been the case?

    SMITH: Yes, could -- again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could've been.

    HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with...

    SMITH: OK. Mr. A.G., it's hard to get an answer yes or no, but let me go on to my next question.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    And where does it say that the administration has forbidden the use of the term "radical Islam"? :confused:
     
  6. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #6
    I'm not sure exactly what Holder was intending in the conversation (and it's hardly the first time I've heard a lawyer and a legislator mince words extensively...), but I think there is an underlying point that is extremely relevant at this point.

    There is no single, unitary "radical Islam." I mean, this could not be more clear given the recent issues we've had with Islamic terrorism. The TTP and the Taliban in Afghanistan are both clearly radicalized groups, composed of Muslims who have an "Islamic" agenda, and they even have the same name, and yet their goals, objectives, and methods are largely quite different.

    If we're going to beat these guys, it does behoove us to have some basic understanding of what motivates them and how they operate. We can't be fighting multiple wars and covert pseudo-wars all over the Middle East and still be a country that echoes that Alan Jackson line, "I'm not sure I could tell you, the difference between Iraq and Iran."
     
  7. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #7
    Which one?

    [​IMG]
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    As a side note, maybe we need a bipartisan moratorium on "stay classy" threads. It was kind of funny the first time, but it's become kind of silly, and it's hard to keep track of what the hell each of these threads is actually about.
     
  9. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    I'm sorry, but why is not using the term "radical Islam" a bad thing? There are radicals out there who happen to be Muslims, but that does not mean that the religion is evil, radical, or should be hated.

    Maybe, by not using that term, the administration is trying to develop relationships with the part of the world that does not like us. Maybe, by not using those words, they might actually lessen terrorism, and maybe the Republicans who insist on demonizing people are inviting terrorism. If so, then why? Do they want terrorism? Do they want the political gain? Why on earth would you actively TRY to make people hate us more?

    (edit) I read Mr. Smith's questions, and first, he's rude and has no interest in the answers. He ONLY wants someone to agree with him so that he can take some political gain. Re-read what Mr. Holder said, and you will see that he won't demonize an entire religion, he will only say that people who have taken radical positions within that religion are to be attacked. Unfortunately, that's far, far too complex for people like Mr. Smith to understand.
     
  10. unid macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Traffic_island_bay
    #10
    Clay Stasi (Henry)

    How would Cassius clay be classed today?

    Imagine he is 22, would he be regarded as someone radicalised by Elijah Muhammed?
     
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    I'm not sure what the questioner was intending.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    He would be classed as a heavyweight. A good one too.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13


    Damn you people. You take my **** and ruin it for everyone. :D



    Come on. I guarantee you that clip appears in a campaign ad telling voters how tough he is on terrorism.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Stay classy, rdowns.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    [creepy music]
    [voiceover]
    Eric Holder... a man who didn't want to tar an entire religion over the acts of a few nut jobs. Is he the kind of man you want in Washington?​
    [/voiceover]​
    [/creepy music]
     
  16. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    [creepy music]
    [voiceover]
    Sarah Palin... a woman who really wanted to tar an entire political party over the acts of a few nut jobs. Is she the kind of woman you want in Washington?​
    [/voiceover]​
    [/creepy music][/
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    It's radicals of every type that are the threat, to say radical islam is the main source of terrorism is not only stupid, its a huge lie.

    Sorry to burst your bubble ZA, but radical islam isn't the problem, its simply radicals.
     
  18. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    Its probably just a coincidence that the most recent ones are all muslim, all trained in some islamic terrorist sect, and all from the same general area. Allahu akbar! Lets pretend that we aren't having a holy war staged on our country, maybe it will go away.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    You understand that Islam preaches peace just as much as religions like christianity right?

    Don't think for a second just because nutjobs do something in the name of a ridiculously twisted, distorted, and manipulated version of a religion it means that Islam is the problem. Most of the main Muslim terrorist groups have very different interpretations of the religion.
     
  20. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #21
    For some reason I don't think Eric Holder would hesitate to point out radical christianity if christians were killing 3000 people at a time in the name of god.

    And this argument is funny for a board that attributes such evil things to christianity such as the inquisition, crusades, etc. Oh wait, that wasn't christianity at all, it was just radicals! oh yes.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    Why do you constantly feel the need to take issue with something ONE person says and then point out about how it doesn't match with "the board."

    Anyone that wants an honest discussion would make the distinction that radicals are indeed the ones responsible for such acts, regardless of religion or creed (what was McVeigh?), that's kind of what makes them radicals.
     
  22. Zombie Acorn thread starter macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Without religion, this wouldn't be happening. It is the key variable, yet we can't say it as we might offend someone. :eek: **** islamic radicals <-- there I said it.
     
  23. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #24
    The Christianity of that era, as well as a number of eras, was a breeding ground for radicalism. Certain aspects of Christianity are a breeding ground for radicalism today. It's certainly true that Islam has many elements in it which enable the process of radicalization. For me personally, I don't agree that Islam is not a part of the problem. Much as Christianity failed to stand up as a religion and say what's right against... say, the Inquisition or American slavery, all the good people in the Islamic world need to be standing up and saying "no way" to radicalism. That's the only way ultimately to stop this process.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    Really? Terrorism doesn't happen without religious causes? Might want to read up on some history books there friend.
     

Share This Page