Well, I don't care for the term "radical" in this case because terrorism is at the core of Islam, rather than just being a radical interpretation of it.
Mohammed himself was a psychotic terrorist, and he is the perfect man and the role model for all Muslims. If anything, Muslims who oppose terrorism are the radicals, because they are pushing for radical change to the religion -- although I can't say how many there may actually be.
agree no need for the word
> Well, I don’t care for the term “radical” in this case because terrorism is at the core of Islam, rather than just being a radical interpretation of it. <
If an enemy is to be defeated, one strategy is to divide and conquer. To omit the word “radical” is to lump all of Islam together. I agree with you that there is a problem at the core of Islam. But when you lump them all together, you are uniting Islam.
Consider the situation in 1939, at the outbreak of WW II in Europe. Spain’s Franco was a fascist, and was on friendly terms with Hitler and Mussolini. Churchill and FDR wisely avoided provoking Franco, and so kept him neutral. They concentrated on the “radical” fascists instead.
Churchill and FDR went all-out against the “radical” fascists, and defeated them in five years. And that turned Franco into a puppy dog.
The real tragedy of today is that the West is not going all-out against the radical Islamists.