Obama won't say it, and he has really sound and specific reasons as to why. I also really hate that we ceded this issue to Trump. It's seeming more and more that this ISIS thing was just a cover for his own self loathing according to recent news reports, which would make the whole "radical Islam" thing a moot issue.

trivial and ridiculous thing to stand on ceremony about and allow the Republicans to use this as a talking point for so long. I've been especially burnt that he did not really explain himself or his reasons for doing so. It just provides them with more fuel.

Radical Islamism is a real thing. We shouldn't pretend it isn't. YES there are radical Christians, radical this, radical that . . . none of which changes the fact that radical Islamism is a real thing. And it's been a bit of a problem in recent history, to put it mildly.

Absent religion, we would simply divide ourselves in other ways. Psychos would invent or latch onto different boogymen to drive their acts of violence and insanity.

That's obvious.

When did we as DEM party ever come to embrace GOP talking points and increasing wars we shouldn't be involved in?

Islamic extremism IS a problem. Pretending it's not to appear pc is pathetic.

pretending to appear more 'engaged' and adding a religion to appease the right is pathetic

Christians, nobody on DU has a problem calling them Christians. Why the skittish bullshit when it involved Muslims? Why the utter, abject, repulsive hypocrisy?

violence in the name of extremism is exactly that, nothing more, nothing less...

This road you've decided to travel leads to one thing, do you really want to fall into that again? Does history not point out the likely outcome of this progression you've undertaken?

it's stunning to me that DEMs here on DU advocate right wing talking points to insulate their candidate from criticism on this war hawk stance

very simple question a try? WHY when it involves Christians do I not see ANYONE on DU warn about bashing all Christians? WHY is that ONLY the case with Islam? Since fucking when did ridiculous hypocrisy become a GOP talking point?

and Muslims are a minority?

Attacking someone's majority religion has a different text and tone to it than attacking someones minority religion.

Not that I have any love for Islam or Christianity.

a good enough reason although I thank you for at least answering my question.

that makes it different to make blanket statements about, say "white men" or "black men".

In this country, one is a majority group with lots of inherent privilege, and one is a minority group that has been the subject of lots of discrimination.

I just don't agree that one is acceptable and the other is not. One sky fairy is like any other.

Stereotyping is bad whether you do it to a minority or the majority, but it's a hell of a lot less damaging to the folks in the majority.

And the anti-Christian rhetoric..since September 11th, the hatred of Moslems in this country has been virulent.

What goes on OFF this board should in no way guide our behavior ON this board. On this board (and proving Bill Maher right), Islam gets a pass that no other religion gets. What gets trashed here is sharia law (not Muslims) - and that should be no surprise to anyone professing liberal tendencies.

Bashing Islam as a whole appears racist. Surely thats obvious? Since the majority of the US is christian, whether practicing or just brought up in the tradition, bashing Christianity is essentially bashing yourself or your peers, hence acceptable. When Muslims bash Christians BTW it appears racist too.

Maybe that's why it's so noticeable to me. I think pretending that religion has nothing to do with jihad is simply madness.

But I'm not sure what it is. Most people associate Islam first and foremost with middle Easterners and south Asians. Sure it is more widespread than that but a lot of people don't realize that.

in the hands of lunatics and extremists.

It's about the ease with which the deranged can get their hands on GUNS.
It's about politicians pandering to the GUN interests to ensure the safety of their cushy seats in Congress.

You can try to deflect all you like. You can pretend one candidate is pure because he cast one vote against one war one time.
But you can't change the truth; Sanders is GUN friendly because it's to his personal benefit.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/bernie-sanders-gun-control/

war hawk... use of neocon terms, need I say more?

I never heard members of the IRA referred to as radical Catholics or radical Christians - they were called terrorists. I rarely heard the followers of Meir Kahane called radical Jews. More importantly, EVEN WHEN THESE RADICALS were condemned, their religion -- in both cases, related to their fighting, was never treated as though it was the cause.

I am Jewish. I have never heard anyone blame my religion for the settlers on the West Bank burning a family to death in their home. I would bet you never did either.

I know of noone who has a problem with this man, or other terrorists being described as Muslim. What is being reacted to - by people like Obama - is when instead of calling these people terrorists AND Muslims, they are called Muslim terrorists or Islamic terrorists.

are specifically invoking their God and religious beliefs as the reason for the mass murders.

When a Christian extremist massacres people, he's a lone wolf. Christians don't do that, only crazy peopel do that, see! His faith is just a happenstance.

Nobody suggests we start monitoring churches. Keep the government out of my church! How dare hte government look at good Christians like they're potential criminals!

The news don't fill the airwaves with anti-Christian scaremongering. They'd get shut down with complaints in less than a day. You can't even run a show that pokes fun at Noah's Ark on broadcast.

We do not demand that Christian clergy and faithful march out single-file to "denounce the actions of the perpetrator." We grant them the benefit of the doubt that they are decent, morally upright people who would not support mass murder even if it comes from "within the faith."

Our candidates and politicians don't yell at each other, demanding they "say the words fundamentalist dominionism."

We do not propose tapping into the "Christian Community" to create a network of civilian informants to act as an "early warning system" in case some Christian decides it's time to go crusading.

The hypocrisy is that we do do all of this, and more, when it's a Muslim who kills people.

Now if you want to say that we ought to do all this stuff with Christians, then say so, go for it. Dare you.

please explain in greater detail, I'm interested to know

compare that to radicalchristianity than christian

That is why they weren;t using that term.

really? does slapping a religion in front of an -ism matter?

wouldn't religious radicalism be more appropriate?

are we in a triangulation moment now?

Islam is not the threat, and she was correct in saying Islamism. There are only two concepts here, so triangulation is pretty much impossible too, words matter.

again -ism....

just state 'religious extremism' since clearly this type of activity occurs in majority of religions, throughout their individual histories as well as in present times

why are DEM folks here on DU championing RW terminology?

and viola', we get dragged over to the right yet again by increments, this being another increment

again, WHY are DEMs here supporting the use of RW terminology, even with the attempt 'to correct it'...

gun control, first and foremost. God forbid Sanders really get behind stringent identity checks.

I clearly stated RW, please do not reply about something I clearly didn't state

I did NOT misquote her, she's triangulating with terminology utilized by RW

I clearly made a statement, what you posted in your latest reply is incorrect

Theyre just nutjobs who wrap their rhetoric into a religious bow in order to give it a sugary taste to the masses.

These people are no more Muslim than Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. No modern religion calls for violence, not even Satanism.

They're perversive nutjobs, pure and simple.. Calling them what they want us to call them instead of what they are is allowing them to win the war.

on DU, you see ZERO pushback from many here about tagging McVeigh as a Christian. It's the hypocrisy I'm disgusted with.

You display the same hypocrisy when you cheer Hillary for calling it Islamic radicalism, yet she has never uttered the words Christian radicalism.

Why aren't you disgusted with Hillary's hypocrisy?

You can't have it both ways and expect to not be called out on it or be taken seriously.

for Hillary saying words? When Christians are systematically and with the backing of Christian governments asking for the deaths of gays, I promise you, I will condemn it (as I did many times with Uganda). Until then, you're just deflecting into bullshit territory.

With someone like Eric Rudolph there'd be more of a case.

it even worse? It's only Islam and Muslims that get a pass on so much bullshit around here.

Isis is based on an interpretation of Islam combined with hateful politics...it just is. This does not mean an entire religion is evil though...which is what the GOP believes.

Bernie named a specific GROUP

HRC used a right wing meme, should've just stated extremism, why include an entire religion?

We don't state 'radical christian' when they kill or bomb abortion clinics do we? How often have we tagged anything 'radical christian' in any narrative in political discourse?

From the OP:

In her appearance, Clinton also was quick to link the attack to the terror organization.

"This was a terrorist attack. ISIS appears to be claiming credit for it, whether it had anything to do with it or not -- at a minimum, they seem to have inspired it," Clinton told host Chris Cuomo."

Reading is fundamental.

reading is fundamental

HRC is a war hawk, she is using terminology the right engages in, the point is why? and why would you condone it?

She said that calling it "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" has no relevance to actually doing something about the problem.

why are DEMs here in DU defending the use of RW terminology?

words have relevance, how those words evolve into policy matter, when you invoke specificity of an individual religion matters, she should have stated religious extremism or radical religious fundamentalism

HRC supporters trying to insulate their candidate from constructive criticism in terms of DEM ideology is stunning to see in action

you can deflect all you'd like, she's making statements using RW terminology

'she's not afraid to say "radical" Islam as she countered attacks from Donald Trump that she's too politically correct to use the phrase'

' I have clearly said we -- whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I'm happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing.'

'claimed Clinton was "afraid to use because President Obama doesn't want her to" before host Christine Romans corrected him, pointing out Clinton had just used the term in the preceding interview'

Classic TRIANGULATION, nowhere is HRC 'dismissing' the term, she's co-opting it, as a DEM why would you defend this tactic?

I think the broader term would incorporate Al Quaida, Boko Haram, and those lone wolf perpetrators that self radicalize etc..

as I CLEARLY stated... 'HRC used a right wing meme, should've just stated extremism, why include an entire religion'

that's what I am 'saying'...

We should never use those words.

for it to be condoned here within DU is mind boggling

Language controls thought processes to an extent, buying into a specific verbiage usually comes with implicit assumptions, it's wise to examine those assumptions before using the phrases.

DEM party doesn't need to go down this path...

It's the Democrat's job to never go outside those republican-defined parameters.

Same shit, different day.

And horrifying Democrats in the process. We can see where all this is going.

I wish our presumptive nominee wouldn't keep falling for it.

Also disappointed to see gun control posed as a secondary problem.

There's a reason the right wing hammers away at the Islamic terrorism, rather than just terrorism. Trump is the obvious extension of that meme.

Too bad to see Clinton buy into it.

So on one hand, it shuts the GOP up on that level, and on the other, we're apparently going to call it radical Islam or radical jihadists or some other variant.

I don't think she's going to let Trump run his intended campaign. On the other hand, she needs to be cautious of Karl Rove 101: define the playing field for your opponent and exhaust them on it, so that they are focused on defense and not offense.

There are no easy answers to this one, but Clinton going up against Trump with Obama's vocabulary and stance on this is only going to feed Trump. I'm not saying he's "wrong," and I'm not saying he's "right." I'm just saying that what may have worked for Obama for his two terms isn't going to work for Clinton, and this seems to be an indication that she's well aware of that.

Trump said "radical Islam," and Clinton said "radical Islamism." I agree with the latter formulation. Islamism is, roughly, political Islam. Were Islam kept in the spiritual life of people, and in the mosques and homes, I don't imagine there would be any difficulty.

And like most things Republican - it's just filled with more name-calling air.
They don't have a solution for anything.

Maybe he had reasons

Or did you say that along with the GOP?

I thought that was rather obvious, don't you?

President Obama is very cautious and careful when dealing with comments about terrorism and how Islam is connected to it... for good reasons. But in this case I think Hillary is right.

What matters is what we do.

Radical Islam DOES exist. So do right-wing Christian nuts. Neither applies to everyone of that faith.

This isn't the time for this.

Obviously she is trying to scare people...it's unfortunate but middle america needs a bad guy, and so does the military industrial complex. I'm sure you're old enough to remember when everyone hated Serbs. Same nonsense

because that is what our allies don't want us to say.

Why doesn't she tell the Donald to grow the fuck up and realize that international relations aren't easy?

And claiming that ISIS planned this is WAY jumping the gun.

at this rate she'll be dropping cluster bombs on Dearborn by Christmas...

Then it's bomb, bomb, bomb, .... Bomb, bomb Iran...

Those of you 1%ers out there are probably expanding your holdings in General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. Yippee!!! Kill 'em all!!!

It is a tactic of war to use language to demonize potential victims. Broadly dehumanizing individuals is a common war tactic that works to justify killing civilians as well as soldiers.
It's sickening but not surprising to see her adopting this tactic.

terrorism whether it's on the basis of religion or domestic issues.

Omar Mateen was yet another moron radicalized via the internet, and a rabid homophobe to boot. A perfect storm of hate that found an outlet that resulted in the loss of many innocent lives.

Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

cure for cancer, the Hillary haters would bash her regardless

A complete loss of critical thinking skills among some

Enough with their pretending magic words make the problem go away.

Rather than following Trump's framing, though, I'd prefer her leading in a different direction.

And, given the outcome, I see no symmetry between the two.

I'm no fan, as anyone who's read much of anything of mine in GD: P knows, but Secretary Clinton nailed that one. She identified a huge part of the problem without impugning normal Muslims. Well done, Madame Secretary.

that gave us IS: she STILL thinks all Mideast policy should be around attacking Iran through whatever proxies she imagines it has

He was wise not to do so. Not too sure she's gonna be the guardian of his legacy

Orlando wasn't about ISIS. The guy was a closet gay fighting his demons ... and the demons won. And here goes Hillary, as usual, ready to show her toughness. But feeding the rightwing hate and fear machine in doind so. Anothet massive fail in judgement. We are in deep doo doo.

She shouldn't get into a pissing contest with an idiot. She shouldn't react to him.

She definitely shouldn't "Me Too!" to anything he says.

The GOP contends by right wing magic that if the president or a candidate I suppose says the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' then somehow it is defeated..stupid...so Trump where is the amazing victory? Trump is a dumb ass but dangerous all the same.

that believes it can dictate the morality of another is the cause.

Or Hindu terror?