Hillary Clinton: I'll say the words 'radical Islamism'

[Luiz 4,253]

CNN)Hillary Clinton said Monday 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.

"From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say," Clinton said on CNN's "New Day." "And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. 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."

Clinton -- who also reupped her call to restore the assault weapons ban -- was forceful in dismissing Republicans' criticism -- vocally echoed by Trump -- that President Barack Obama and Democrats won't describe such terror attacks as "radical Islamic terrorism."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-orlando-attacks-reaction/

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

She didn't say Radical Islam though 

That CNN article is inaccurate in that regard.

[Didymus 34,380]

Technically it's not the same thing, but I appreciate she's trying to use more proper terms than just "Islam". Islamism or political Islam is better, though not unproblematic either. It's just a very hard thing to talk about, because it's hard to define and people should know that because it shines light on how complex the issue is. People like Trump however who try to pretend all is very simple and you "have to say it the way it is" (which is the outcry of an idiot) are just downright dangerous because it leads to rash actions that will always end up as absolute disasters.

Hillary's absolutely right, our time should be spent looking for plans of action based on a thorough understanding of the situation in front of us. Whining about some vaguely defined "radical Islam" does nothing to understand the problems we face and nothing to help us understand how we should overcome them, so props to Hillary for not giving in to easy warmongering to please the unwashed masses Now the next thing these politicians should do is let some actual scholars of Islamism etc. do the talking and spend more time listening to their advice, which could've prevented a lot of mistakes in the past.

[Didymus 34,380]

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

She didn't say Radical Islam though 

That CNN article is inaccurate in that regard.

The title does say Islamism. But I read it wrong too at first so  

[The Child 18,997]

9 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Technically it's not the same thing, but I appreciate she's trying to use more proper terms than just "Islam". Islamism or political Islam is better, though not unproblematic either. It's just a very hard thing to talk about, because it's hard to define and people should know that because it shines light on how complex the issue is. People like Trump however who try to pretend all is very simple and you "have to say it the way it is" (which is the outcry of an idiot) are just downright dangerous because it leads to rash actions that will always end up as absolute disasters.

Hillary's absolutely right, our time should be spent looking for plans of action based on a thorough understanding of the situation in front of us. Whining about some vaguely defined "radical Islam" does nothing to understand the problems we face and nothing to help us understand how we should overcome them, so props to Hillary for not giving in to easy warmongering to please the unwashed masses Now the next thing these politicians should do is let some actual scholars of Islamism etc. do the talking and spend more time listening to their advice, which could've prevented a lot of mistakes in the past.

Marry me!

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said:

She didn't say Radical Islam though 

That CNN article is inaccurate in that regard.

Not in her speech, but I'm the morning on a CNN talk show. 

Anyways, can you enlighten me on why she's still pushing for an assault weapons ban? She was a senator when we still had our first ban. She saw first hand it did absolutely nothing to curb gun violence. There were still just as much mass shootings. Why would she push it if not just for political gain?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

19 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Not in her speech, but I'm the morning on a CNN talk show. 

Anyways, can you enlighten me on why she's still pushing for an assault weapons ban? She was a senator when we still had our first ban. She saw first hand it did absolutely nothing to curb gun violence. There were still just as much mass shootings. Why would she push it if not just for political gain?

Not true

The number of fatalities is the issue. Unfortunately tragedies will still happen no matter how much you try to prevent them, but what you can do is limit their effect.

So while mass shootings didn't exactly get stopped during the ban, the number of deaths was FAR less than it is now when automatic/semi-automatic weapons are used.

[MJHolland 12,725]

15 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Not true

The number of fatalities is the issue. Unfortunately tragedies will still happen no matter how much you try to prevent them, but what you can do is limit their effect.

So while mass shootings didn't exactly get stopped during the ban, the number of deaths was FAR less than it is now when automatic/semi-automatic weapons are used.

The largest mass shooting in American history up until this Sunday happened during the assault weapons ban. It did nothing.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

The largest mass shooting in American history up until this Sunday happened during the assault weapons ban. It did nothing.

It did something.

In the 11 years after the assault weapons ban was allowed by the GOP Congress to expire, the US had 46 mass shootings per year from 2005 to 2015, or 4.18 mass shootings per year. That’s more than 2.61 times as many mass shootings as when the US had the assault weapons ban.

[MJHolland 12,725]

28 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It did something.

In the 11 years after the assault weapons ban was allowed by the GOP Congress to expire, the US had 46 mass shootings per year from 2005 to 2015, or 4.18 mass shootings per year. That’s more than 2.61 times as many mass shootings as when the US had the assault weapons ban.

The largest mass shooting in US history up until Sunday happened under the assault weapons ban, and the act have literally no impact on overall gun violence.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

The largest mass shooting in US history up until Sunday happened under the assault weapons ban, and the act have literally no impact on overall gun violence.

It had impact on the overall number of mass shootings. 

Which mass shooting are you referring to? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It had impact on the overall number of mass shootings. 

Which mass shooting are you referring to? 

The majority of people killed by guns are by mass shootings. Death by mass shootings are extremely rare when compared to all deaths by firearms.

So no, banning assault weapons won't do sh*t to curb gun violence. 

[Whispering 18,865]

Just now, MJHolland said:

The majority of people killed by guns are by mass shootings. Death by mass shootings are extremely rare when compared to all deaths by firearms.

So no, banning assault weapons won't do sh*t to curb gun violence. 

Once again, the ban did impact mass shootings. 

And again, what mass shooting are you referring to in your comments? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

Once again, the ban did impact mass shootings. 

And again, what mass shooting are you referring to in your comments? 

Columbine, probably the most horrific indent I've ever watched. 

Addressing mass shootings doesn't address gun violence. Less than 1% of people killed by guns are killed in mass casualty situations. 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

19 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Columbine, probably the most horrific indent I've ever watched. 

Addressing mass shootings doesn't address gun violence. Less than 1% of people killed by guns are killed in mass casualty situations. 

 

Columbine wasn't the second largest, it isn't even in the top five. It isn't even in the top ten deadliest mass shootings. 

This ban is in direct response to mass shootings. A ban had an impact on mass shootings and the majority of citizens support it due to these mass shootings.