Clinton explains why she won't say 'radical Islam'

[Attorney in Texas]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton explained on Sunday that she won't use the term "radical Islam" because it "sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."

"It doesn't do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people," Clinton said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

"No. 2, it helps to create this clash of civilizations that is actually a recruiting tool for ISIS and other radical jihadists who use this as a way of saying, 'We are in a war against the West -- you must join us,'" she said.

Clinton has faced criticism in recent weeks for -- like President Barack Obama and other Democratic candidates -- refusing to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" in the wake of ISIS attacks like the shootings in Paris.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/hillary-clinton-radical-islam/

---

Clinton isn't my first (or second) choice in the primary but her eloquent rebuttal of this right-wing talking point shows why everyone in the Democratic primary would make a better leader than anyyone in the Republican primary.

[beltanefauve]

1. She's

my last choice in the Dem primary too, but she said what needed to be said. I'm glad you're giving credit where credit is due.

[retrowire]

2. She's not my first or second choice either but

This answer is SMART.

"sounds like we are declaring war against a religion."

Thank you Hillary!

[Major Nikon]

3. The problem is the right wing nutbags are allowed to float such rhetoric

As if it were anything but the stupidest shit imaginable. They have successfully browbeat the mainstream media into believing we are serving the interest of "balance" by entertaining cretinism.

Kudos to HRC for saying this, but someone should have said it a long time ago.

[Thinkingabout]

4. This is not the first time radical islam has not been used. They are radical terrorists, the same

as the PP shooter, he wasn't Muslim but he is a radical terrorists.

[underpants]

5. Finally someone says the obvious

The media following Fox News down yet another bunny hole has perpetuated this nonsense while they could have easily explained it. But then, getting the full equation from our bubble media just doesn't happen.

The part of this that really pisses me off is the complete DISRESPECT towards a fully grown man who is also the twice elected (by landslide) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Stop griping about what someone doesn't say. For Gods sake I know they have nothing else to talk about and are f'ing drama queens but .... okay now I'll go there... it's not what they don't say its that they continually run their stupid pandering propaganda driven pie holes SHUT THE F UP!

[6chars]

6. More from article

She said it's important to fight ISIS via air strikes and ground combat led by Arab militaries -- but also online.

"We're going to need help from Facebook and from YouTube and from Twitter," Clinton said.

"They cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of attacks of the celebration of violence by the sophisticated Internet user," she said. "They're going to have to help us take down these announcement and appeals, particularly as they get up."

[roamer65]

7. Not a big Clinton fan, but she's right. N/t

[shadowmayor]

8. Sounds like and adult

An adult answering a childish question. Why does the damned fawning corporate media keep up with this charade? The media should be putting this meme right back on the wingers, instead it's become a defensive position for rational folks on the side of reason.

[GoneFishin]

9. She's not my choice either, but I like her statement and she is on the high road on this one.

I want to barf every time I hear someone shoehorn "radical Islam" into every sentence when discussing violence by brown skinned people while referring to all other terrorists as "lone wolf", "disgruntled", "mentally ill".

It's a cheesy conditioning tactic that is pounded into us by the media.

[rocktivity]

10. Not saying "radical Islam" also saves you from not having to say

"radical Christianity" or "radical Judaism."

But "extremist" (insert name of religious or political platform here) works just as well.


rocktivity

[appalachiablue]

12. Exactly. Careful wording is obligatory for legal, political and other professions.

[7962]

15. I agree, but She wont use that one either.

She's just taking the easy road. Fighting "Radical xxxxx" does NOT sound like a war on ALL of "xxxx". Otherwise we wouldnt out the word "radical" in the sentence.
Weak sauce

[patsimp]

18. there is radical Christianity and Radical Judaism and Radical Hindus

they are not as organized, bloodthirsty or dangerous as the radical islamists.

[jonno99]

27. Shhh...careful. You're coming close to expressing a factual opinion... nt

[patsimp]

31. i waiting for others to do the same.

[Thespian2]

11. Interesting...

that so many in the GodOffalParty love to lump ALL forms of Islam together, but will squeal their silly heads off if you dare to lump ALL forms of Christianity together...after all, their form of religion is the only true religion...

For instance, my fundamentalist Baptist preacher father would rupture his spleen squealing if you dared to say that Catholic priests were Christian...

[Democat]

13. Hillary sounds intelligent when she speaks

Unlike many others who would like to be president.

[closeupready]

14. Credit where credit is due. Thanks, HRC. K&R

[Angel Martin]

16. Clinton explains why she won't say 'radical Islam'

because Clinton thinks that muslims are not mature enough to recognize that some of their co-religionists are radical ?

[patsimp]

17. it's not a right wing talking point. How many people have been murdered by islamists in the past

month based on getting closer to their religion?

[Attorney in Texas]

20. How many people have been murdered [insert race, religion, ethnicity, political views] in the past

month based on issues related to {insert race, religion, ethnicity, political views}?

Islam promotes the violence perpetrated by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Bernardino to the same degree and in the same way as Christianity promotes the violence perpetrated by Robert Dear in Colorado.

In both cases, it is not the religion that promotes the violence; it is violence that a terrorist seeks to justify through religious belief.

Blaming Islam for the San Bernardino shootings is like blaming Christianity for the Salem witch trial or the violence in Northern Ireland or the Planned Parenthood shootings in Colorado (and elsewhere in the US and Canada for decades). Blaming the whole religion may have some appeal on a simple level, but the issue is not a religious problem as a manifestation of the violence inherent in the religion (unless you believe that all religions have an inherent violence embedded within the faith-based mindset).

[patsimp]

21. the relgion actually says that muslims have a duty to kill nonmuslims if they do not convert

to islam

[Attorney in Texas]

22. Just like the Bible justifies slavery and spousal abuse. You can take passages out of context to

support all sorts of nonsense, but mainstream Christians agree that the Bible -- when read in context -- does NOT support slavery, and it is equally true that mainstream Islam does not support the killing of non-Muslims.

If you believe otherwise, you should turn off the hate radio and the FauxNoise and take a religious studies course because no respectable religious scholar holds the view that Islam or Christianity or Judaism promote the idea that bombings or mass shootings are an acceptable recruitment tool to bring nonbelievers into the faith.

[patsimp]

23. Christians are no longer killing people by the thousands.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. The Bible hasn't been revised in the past millenium so if Christianity was susceptible

radicalization during the crusades, during the Salem witch trials, or during the troubles in Northern Ireland, then the Bible hasn't been recently amended to change the Christian faith to eliminate this vulnerable to radicalization.

It isn't the religion that promotes terrorism (whether you are discussing Islam, Christianity, or Judaism), it is terrorists who are misusing a religion to falsely justify a terroristic act.

[LanternWaste]

25. Christians are indeed and in fact, yet killing non-Christians by the thousands

"Christians are no longer killing people by the thousands."

Your premise is not accurate. Christians are indeed and in fact, yet killing non-Christians by the thousands. The massacre of Muslim by Christian in the Central African Republic, the massacre of Muslim by Christian in Bosnia, the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the Lord's Resistance Army and Christian sharia law in Uganda, Christian churches directly involved in torture, murder of thousands of African children denounced as witches.

So yeah... your and my religion are still killing people by the thousands, regardless of how we may try to rationalize otherwise to better justify our bias and intolerance against others.

[patsimp]

26. these are not relgious killings in the name of our religion

also I am not Christian.

[LanternWaste]

29. These are indeed, religious killings specifically in the name of Christianity.

These are indeed, religious killings specifically in the name of Christianity. Simply saying otherwise does not make the otherwise any less false than it already stands, nor does it change recent history.

Source: The Sacrifice of Africa: A Political Theology for Africa by Emmanuel Katongole, and A Semiotic Approach to the Theology of Inculturation by Dennis Doyle

[patsimp]

30. they are both wrong then.

[jonno99]

35. "...in the name of..." -

Hypothetical question: If I kill someone "in the name of" XYZ - am I justified in any way?

The only possible justification, however small, would would be if XYZ was a recognized authority figure who gave specific instructions to kill certain individuals, or kill under certain circumstances.

I haven't read your sources; do they (or can you) point to Christian texts that direct the killing of other individuals?

[Skittles]

19. excellent response

[earthside]

28. Because we are all too stupid to understand the meaning of adjectives.

I understand the difference between "radical Islam" and/or "radical Islamist terrorist" and Islam.

It is exactly this kind of nose-up-in-the-air condescension from Democratic leaders that is going to alienate unaffiliated, independent voters who are going to be needed to win in 2016.

Refusing to call something what it is out of political fear or pandering is not perceived by most folks as leadership -- it will be seen as weakness and intellectually vacuous.

[Attorney in Texas]

32. Falsely giving terrorists the justification of their religion needlessly denigrates the 99.9% within

the religion who reject such terrorism.

If you are Christian, would you agree with some one who smeared your faith by calling for the US to fight against the rise of radical Christianity in the wake of the Robert Dear rampage (which follows on the heels of similar terrorism from Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, Michael Griffin, John Salvi, Joseph Stockett, etc.)?

[earthside]

33. It makes liberals and Democrats look like idiots.

What is next?

We have to describe the Westboro Baptist Church extremists as Westboro ______ agitators?

How do you describe the couple that killed 14 people last week?
"Bad people with a terrible political motive?"

I'm not a Christian anymore, but I would have no problem whatsoever with a radical group of extremist Christian terrorists being described as what they are ... I am intelligent to understand the difference between them and me.

Does Pres. Obama, Clinton, I'm assuming Sanders, et al., really think that 99 percent of Muslims are so gullible and ignorant they they can't tell the difference between "radical islamist terrorists" who murder in Paris and California and the religion they practice every day?

It is so condescending; it reeks of a kind of 'know it all' arrogance that is an insult to normal thinking people here and around the world.

[Attorney in Texas]

34. If we want to enlist the assistance of a coalition of countries that includes Saudi Arabia. Morocco,

Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Kurds, and other Islamic peoples and countries, then declaring war on Islam is counterproductive.

If we want to shut down recruitment efforts by Daesh which are focused on persuading disaffected people that Western culture has declared war on their religion, then declaring war on Islam is counterproductive.

If we want the Islamic super-majorities who abhor this terrorism to speak out, then declaring war on Islam is counterproductive.

Defining the fight as us versus radical Islam plays into the hands of Daesh and frustrates our goals.

Why give them such an advantage?

What benefit to you get from calling them radical Islamists -- why not call them radical Arabs or radical brown-eyed people or radical hummus eaters? All such terms are offensive because that is not what defines them -- what defines them is their terrorism, not their phony religious justification for their terrorism.