Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Anyone Else Notice?
How during last night's debate, Obama used words like "extremists" to describe terrorist attacks, whereas Romney used words like "Jihadists". I thought it was an interesting distinction and smart way to distance Islam from terrorists. You know, since all Muslims are not terrorists and all terrorists are not Muslim.
Re: Anyone Else Notice?
$10 says the distinction comes from actually being president for the last 4 years.
He was using the phrase "replacement government" a little too frequently. I agree with pp -- he has no clue on foreign policy matters and it showed last night.
Except that the word "Jihad" means...
ji?had/ji'h?d/
I Jihad is actually part of the Islamic religion - an extreme one. Obama's terminology "extremists" makes sense as "Jihadists" are extreme in their beliefs and actions. However, Romney isn't wrong either. He is simply giving them their correct name. Each candidate is using correct terminology. And, the Koran specifically calls for violent actions against unbelievers of Islam. Neither man is making this up or making it worse than it really is.
This may be true but sadly, I think you are more educated and advanced than most Americans who would not have taken the time to look up the word. I commend people who do the research but the truth is most people don't distinguish Muslims in general from Jihad. I think it is important to leave someone's religion out of classifying them as a terrorist so as to avoid scapegoats and promote acceptance in our country...especially by the leaders of our country.
Thank you, I know what Jihad means. But just because a centuries-old holy book tells you to do something, doesn't mean you should. I appreciate the President drawing a subtle distinction between Islam (which shares a lot of tenets with Christianity) and violent extremists. Islam and terrorism are not one in the same.
This may be true but sadly, I think you are more educated and advanced than most Americans who would not have taken the time to look up the word. I commend people who do the research but the truth is most people don't distinguish Muslims in general from Jihad. I think it is important to leave someone's religion out of classifying them as a terrorist so as to avoid scapegoats and promote acceptance in our country...especially by the leaders of our country.
PFFT...
Jihadists = extremists. Jihad is a part of a religion - not the religion in its entirety. This PP above understood my point. Romeny and Obama are still using two, applicaable, words to describe the same group of people.
Your point about a book being old is okay. But it doesn't alter than fact that many faiths around the world still adhere to old books and docrines. So, I don't know why the age of a faith's book (in this case the Koran) is important for you to note.
This is not a point to debate the merits of either candidate...one knowing more than the other since in this case, both are correct - terminology-wise. Again, Jihadists=extremists. But not all Muslims are Jihadists. Therefore, not all Muslims are extreme. "Jihadist" is an interchangeable term with "extremist," but is not interchangeable with "Muslim."
Using "extremist" recognizes that not all terrorists are Muslim. Jihadist is a uniquely Muslim term.
That's where the difference lies. Obama has spent the last 4 years dealing with international diplomacy and that's taught him to refrain from using terms that will only apply to one specific religious/ethnic/cultural group.
As usual, you said it better than I did. I just think using words like "Jihadists" "Muslim" and "government" within the same breath sends a certain sub-conscious message.
LOL. Wait. So you're saying that there really really are subconscious messages (your quote in the PP) going on in the presidential platforms, histories and debates? Oh wait. You all accused me of being a conspiracy theorist and of being paranoid, watching for things that weren't really there.
Dears. You cannot have it both ways. And, if Romney has a subconscious message, as you assert, then we must allow that Obama has one too.
Ahhh this is so enlightening.
I never called you a conspiracy theorist. I'm confused.
I think MommyLiberty needs to take another nestbreak before she threatens to shoot people again.
I'm also fairly certain that the real subconcious message was sent out via Morse Code in Romney's blinking.
I haven't even read the bulk of this thread, but I'm gonna have to agree.
Wow. I never threatened to "SHOOT" anyone. I did tell people to watch out and be prepared, to be self-reliant. It was another poster here, can't remember her name, who asserted that I had her in my "crosshairs," which was the exact word SHE used and was the only time that there was every any firearm related talk.
For your info, my previous break didn't entirely occur due to my feelings about TN. It was do to same personal physical health-related problems. Also, my DS was in the emergency room and my time needed to be spent elsewhere.
I am talking sense. You can't just throw out these one liner untrue accusations about a poster on here who happens to actually have valid points and can engage in educated conversation.
So, dialing back to before my Nest Break...I accused you of blockading discussions by this exact sort of immature one-line jab taking...
Fez, you just accused me of something I never wrote in this thread where I have had nothing but a cordial discussion that has taken shots at candidates' ideas and pasts, not at ANY posters' person. Not okay. I have been giving you the respect you deserve as I think you are a good poster with some good points.
Anyway, I will continue to do that. Is there anything in you that can do that too?
You talk sense sometimes. Your tirade against the Communists yesterday was just mindboggling, ML.
The fact that my non-sequiter can get under your skin so much that you type a 5 paragraph essay means that you're taking this too seriously and maybe you do need to take a step back.
I'm sorry that your DS was in the emergency room.
You did threaten people before. You did. I'm not the only one who read it that way.
I don't "blockade discussions". I like having discussions with people who will actually have discussions back.
I don't see that happening much here, so I fall back on the snark to keep my sanity while I wait until discussions of merit actually happen.
Some of the posters on here do not help the Republican cause to not look like compassionless choads.
The compassionless choad comment wasn't directed at you, ML. If it had been, I would've said straight up it was you.
I still maintain that Obama having ties to communists means exactly nothing.
Again, Communism is not the enemy. It hasn't been for a very long time.
Thanks. Good to know. And, again I do apologize about some of my inflamatory word choices in portions of my old post.