Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Hell, we could all be like Bernie Sanders and blame it all on climate change.
These radical Islamists are doing it FOR ALLAH. It is really that simple.
This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But, ISIS is definitely committing their atrocities in the name of their religion.
Disenfranchised, my ass.
Social and economic difficulties? A bunch of BS.
Many of these monsters are from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
They are religious zealots who believe all the world should be Muslim and will go to any extent to make that a reality.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Hell, we could all be like Bernie Sanders and blame it all on climate change.
These radical Islamists are doing it FOR ALLAH. It is really that simple.
This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But, ISIS is definitely committing their atrocities in the name of their religion.
Disenfranchised, my ass.
Social and economic difficulties? A bunch of BS.
Many of these monsters are from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
They are religious zealots who believe all the world should be Muslim and will go to any extent to make that a reality.

Many of the al-Qaida recruits were indeed middle or upper middle class. But, ISIS is very different. The vast majority of its members are quite poor. Also, if you read the article in today's Washington Post, you will see that it is not clear that the ISIS leadership is all that religious. They are all former Baathists and that was a secular party.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, which article is that? I missed it.

After this article was published last February (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) I could sense the tenor of most ISIS coverage changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no violence in the New Testament. The old regulations were nailed to the cross with Jesus. He taught turn the other cheek, and he without son cast the first stone. The Old Testament brutal rules don't apply to Christianity.

Except this part?

"I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

I should have clarified that this was because she was sexually immoral. That New Testament God sounds like a real winner.

-said the religion-hating atheist.

Those were Jesus' words about Jezebel, I believe, as a warning before the final judgment. Even some Christians can understand that biblical passages were designed to instill fear in the reader/listener.

not exactly kind, loving words

like father, like son, I suppose

main message - Whores and their children go to hell.

The main message of the New Testament is far from what you've written here, and Jesus loved children. He also loved and healed people from all walks of life. I encourage you to read and study all the words of Jesus in the New Testament. For the best of reasons, they've brought me and many others great peace, comfort, and hope.

I posted the scripture above, but not the "father like son" response.

The point I was making is about violence in holy books influencing religion-based violence today.

I posted "like father, like son."

many MANY years of Catholic school - so the NT isn't so new to me

Some people find comfort in those texts; others use and abuse them to gain power.

If you're disenfranchised, you're easy prey. Therein lies the problem.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, which article is that? I missed it.

After this article was published last February (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) I could sense the tenor of most ISIS coverage changing.

While it would seem unlikely at first glance, both your article and this once can be reconciled:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Hell, we could all be like Bernie Sanders and blame it all on climate change.
These radical Islamists are doing it FOR ALLAH. It is really that simple.
This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But, ISIS is definitely committing their atrocities in the name of their religion.
Disenfranchised, my ass.
Social and economic difficulties? A bunch of BS.
Many of these monsters are from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
They are religious zealots who believe all the world should be Muslim and will go to any extent to make that a reality.

Many of the al-Qaida recruits were indeed middle or upper middle class. But, ISIS is very different. The vast majority of its members are quite poor. Also, if you read the article in today's Washington Post, you will see that it is not clear that the ISIS leadership is all that religious. They are all former Baathists and that was a secular party.

Former Baathists were often Sunnis who joined the party in order to gain employment under Saddan Husseins regime.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Hell, we could all be like Bernie Sanders and blame it all on climate change.
These radical Islamists are doing it FOR ALLAH. It is really that simple.
This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But, ISIS is definitely committing their atrocities in the name of their religion.
Disenfranchised, my ass.
Social and economic difficulties? A bunch of BS.
Many of these monsters are from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
They are religious zealots who believe all the world should be Muslim and will go to any extent to make that a reality.

Many of the al-Qaida recruits were indeed middle or upper middle class. But, ISIS is very different. The vast majority of its members are quite poor. Also, if you read the article in today's Washington Post, you will see that it is not clear that the ISIS leadership is all that religious. They are all former Baathists and that was a secular party.

The hidden hand behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein’s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.

The U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the extremist group, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame, said Col. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, “Iraq After America.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Hell, we could all be like Bernie Sanders and blame it all on climate change.
These radical Islamists are doing it FOR ALLAH. It is really that simple.
This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. But, ISIS is definitely committing their atrocities in the name of their religion.
Disenfranchised, my ass.
Social and economic difficulties? A bunch of BS.
Many of these monsters are from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds.
They are religious zealots who believe all the world should be Muslim and will go to any extent to make that a reality.

Many of the al-Qaida recruits were indeed middle or upper middle class. But, ISIS is very different. The vast majority of its members are quite poor. Also, if you read the article in today's Washington Post, you will see that it is not clear that the ISIS leadership is all that religious. They are all former Baathists and that was a secular party.

The hidden hand behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein’s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-hidden-hand-behind-the-islamic-state-militants-saddam-husseins/2015/04/04/aa97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.

The U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the extremist group, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame, said Col. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, “Iraq After America.”

oops - already posted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Religion is their motivation, their excuse, their reason. As for "critical thought," while you are crying over the "economic and socially disenfranchised" who commit these acts, they are plotting to kill you, your family, your friends. If they don't kill you, they want you/your wife in a burka. Your children to become fighters.

I pray that those who are in a position of power will act swiftly and justly.

[Anonymous]

For many decades, those desirous of power in the Middle East have cynically used religion to attract the masses to do their bidding in pursuit of their goal. They have a very long tradition of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. This is a longstanding hallmark of the Muslim Brotherhood, by today's standards a very tame group.

ISIS is no different in this respect, just more ruthless, more media savvy, and more global in its recruiting efforts, building upon Al-Qaeda's earlier success in that regard. I think the WaPo article is right on the mark.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Religion is their motivation, their excuse, their reason. As for "critical thought," while you are crying over the "economic and socially disenfranchised" who commit these acts, they are plotting to kill you, your family, your friends. If they don't kill you, they want you/your wife in a burka. Your children to become fighters.

I pray that those who are in a position of power will act swiftly and justly.

Religion obviously has a role, just as religion plays a role in Israel and many other places. But, the people in ISIS didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to establish Islam worldwide. ISIS is much different than other groups we have confronted. It is very interested in capturing territory and establishing a country. It grew out of those who were powerless within the countries in which they lived (primarily Syria and Iraq). Islam -- more specifically Wahhabi Islam -- has been a useful ideology, but is not the driver. Attacks like those in Paris, Beirut, and against the Russian aircraft are aimed at those who are attacking them. They are seen as defensive, aimed at stopping the attacks not spreading Islam.

Over simplifying or misrepresenting the situation leads to solutions which at best are ineffective and at worst inflame things even more. To defeat ISIS, you have to understand it accurately.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Religion obviously has a role, just as religion plays a role in Israel and many other places. But, the people in ISIS didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to establish Islam worldwide. ISIS is much different than other groups we have confronted. It is very interested in capturing territory and establishing a country. It grew out of those who were powerless within the countries in which they lived (primarily Syria and Iraq). Islam -- more specifically Wahhabi Islam -- has been a useful ideology, but is not the driver. Attacks like those in Paris, Beirut, and against the Russian aircraft are aimed at those who are attacking them. They are seen as defensive, aimed at stopping the attacks not spreading Islam.

Over simplifying or misrepresenting the situation leads to solutions which at best are ineffective and at worst inflame things even more. To defeat ISIS, you have to understand it accurately.

I completely agree there is much more to ISIS motives than purely religious. But this in no way should diminish or sweep under the carpet the role that religion does play. I highly doubt a suicide bomber volunteers to do their heinous act so their leaders can capture territory and establish a country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

I completely agree there is much more to ISIS motives than purely religious. But this in no way should diminish or sweep under the carpet the role that religion does play. I highly doubt a suicide bomber volunteers to do their heinous act so their leaders can capture territory and establish a country.

The poor deluded devils at the bottom of the hierarchy do believe all the drivel about paradise and 72 virgins or whatever. The ones at the top don't really (you wouldn't catch them on a suicide mission), but they know how to use religion to manipulate the mostly ill educated masses at the bottom into blowing themselves up to help achieve the leadership's political aims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that islamophobic? Will this thread get whacked due to PC?

Ok, let's just for the moment agree to use that terminology.

What do you want now? Should we exterminate all Muslims? Is that where you're going with this?

You seem to be determined to extract some concession for something. What?

What's with these giant leaps? Has anyone suggested extermination?

Perhaps one merely wants to distinguish between the (sadly) many different brands of terrorism in the world?

You people who are hell bent on picking apart every statement and assigning malicious intent are exhausting.

Did you see the backlash aimed at Ruby Rose for posting that we should pray for the whole world? People flipped out and said it was an anti-Paris comment...or that she was sympathizing with the terrorists. Neither was true. She merely meant that the whole world is pretty screwed up right now and maybe prayers for everyone is warranted. But lots of people felt compelled to assign a malicious intent to her simple comment of praying for the world. WTF?

No, the framing of the question was extremely hostile. It is not an innocent question all -- it was totally loaded and it seems extremely important to OP that we use this terminology. Jeff's response was perfect -- it's probably best not to since it invites Islamaphobia and ignores the fact that Muslims are leading the fight AGAINST Islam. It also, by the way, ignores the fact that the world's most populous Muslim country isn't even in the Middle East, but rather in the Pacific Ocean.

So, to suggest that OP "merely wants to distinguish between the ... many different brands of terrorism in the world" is idiotic. It doesn't distinguish at all. There's ISIS, there's Al-Qaeda, there was Chechen... Lumping them all as "Islamic terrorists" actually BLURS the very real distinctions. So, that's a case for NOT using the terminology.

What I did in my response is challenge OP's premise. OP is a bad person -- we see that constantly here. OP is clearly not very bright, not very clever, and is transparently repugnant. We have a duty at every turn to challenge OP's idiotic prattles.

While I generally agree with you, I'm not too terribly concerned about blurring the lines. Here's why:

1. I think they want credit for their acts of violence...so why give it to them? If ISIS wants the media to credit them for this, why give it to them? Heck, why not say it was an act of violence carried out by an angry group of Oompa Loompas just to mess with them?

2. When numerous terrorist groups have several common denominators--like using Islam to incite violence against the western world--then it might be in the western world's best interest to underscore the common denominator and admit that we are in fact at war with an ideology. Ideology. An ideology that has been tweaked by a number of different groups, but the bottom line is the same: death to the infidels, death to America, death to the western world.

If a group prides itself on it's interpretation of Islam and has declared jihad on infidels, then why isn't it fair to call them Islamist terrorists? They aren't environmental terrorists. They aren't Christian terrorists (like those who bomb abortion clinics). They are Islamist terrorists.

Here's where language and context are helpful: by labeling terrorists (bad guys) as Islamist terrorists, you aren't labeling all Muslims as terrorists. Rather, you are adding an adjective to further describe the terrorist. Candidly, I have several more adjectives I'd prefer to add...

+1. Some common sense, imagine that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blaming it on a few passages is a lazy explanation. It's easier than considering the social and economic difficulties that turn disenfranchised people into monsters.

Religion is the excuse that power hungry assholes use to motivate people with nothing to lose. All of you blaming religion are falling for the ruse. Stop being so unbelievably gullible. You're not 5 years old. Use some critical thought.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_nonwarm_and_fuzzy_guide_to_understanding_terrorism.html

Religion is their motivation, their excuse, their reason. As for "critical thought," while you are crying over the "economic and socially disenfranchised" who commit these acts, they are plotting to kill you, your family, your friends. If they don't kill you, they want you/your wife in a burka. Your children to become fighters.

I pray that those who are in a position of power will act swiftly and justly.

Actually, religion isn't the motivation. It's the belief that they're being oppressed and people are out to destroy them on religious grounds. It's not like they read the Quran one day and run out and buy a weapon. Do you believe that's how it worked?

I'm not concerned about being forced to wear a burqa. I think properly educating the women and their poor would do a lot more, but I guess that's too much to hope for with everyone blaming it all on a 2,000 year old book.