This guy does not understand the function of the adjective and and the comma and how the comma between two adjectives can be used to separate the specific from the general. If there were a comma between “radical” and “Islamic,” then “radical” would apply to all of Islamic terrorism. Because there is no comma, the phrase refers only that Islamic terrorism that is radical. All other Islamic terrorism is excluded.
See?
Like if we said “green dog toys” it would apply to only those dog toys that are green. All other dog toys would be excluded. Whereas green, dog toys would refer to all toys that are both green and dog toys in a given toy group.
But we have another problem: All terrorism is radical. So the absence of the comma makes no sense. There should be a comma, to indicate that both “radical” and “Islamic” modify “terrorism.” In fact, the use of the word “radical” is redundant when used with “terrorism,” so the perfectly correct phrase should be “Islamic terrorism,” as opposed to any other kind of terrorism that may arise in the future, may have existed in the past, or occurs today in such small proportions that it is not worth mentioning.
There’s so much crap in here, it’s hard to stay focused.
When I hear the phrase ‘liberal Jew’ I know darn well what the speaker is saying and that they aren’t talking about me.
The “Southern Baptist” parallel really cheesed me off.
Like the planet has a huge problem with Southern Baptists murdering people and mutilating little girls.
Too bad he didn’t learn anything.