Are we allowed to say "Islamic terrorists"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am reading the posts, and the problem is not the posts. It's he general message that it's okay to hate on an entire religion because of a few. It is the ignorant and inflammatory way of thinking that ends up clouding day to day life, and escalates to fear, hatred, and beyond. It's what leads countries to war, or huge injustices to humanity (I won't reference another historical us vs them argument, which people so quickly seem to ignore). One need only look at half the memes on Facebook (why really should be a fairly lighthearted slice of life to begin with) to see the seed has long been planted on us vs them. I'm not worried about comments on DCUM, or an entire thread, I'm worried about the seed it plants that makes it okay to some people to spawn misinformation and hatred.

The tenets of their faith - and I am speaking of the regular people, not any extremists - make it an us-vs-them. Dietary restrictions, head covering, strict prayer times and rules, different personal cleansing..... Things that set you apart from your friends and neighbors make it difficult not to be part of the whole. And the implication - my Muslim friends who cover say they do so to shield themselves and their beauty from men's eyes. It's difficult not to hear an implication that not covering makes me kind of a slut. If one must cleanse oneself in certain ways in order to be clean, it's difficult not to hear an implication that the rest of us who do not are unclean. Dutiful adherence to the whole religion fosters an us vs them.

That said, I do feel bad for the regular Muslims who will be at personal risk for the actions of a couple of morons.

So, let's take your way of thinking and put it even in "western" thinking. Did you read the posts about the young woman who got raped at a party and then was blamed? Did you blame her for being a slut?

Here's where it's at. I have friends who wear hijab. They have never once judged me for not being modest (you know, a Christian white gal of French Canadian descent) any more than I would judge my friend Larla for wearing a suede bikini top to the bar. I personally, wouldn't, but I guide my own modesty by my own ruler.

Here's the thing about a lot of this: the doubt you hear is purely inside your own head.

Us vs. Them is arguably one of the basic emotions / reactions of humanity, and it has nothing to do with religion. Read any post on here about breastfeeding, CIO, Redshirting, or co-sleeping. I have no doubt (and this is said quite tongue in cheek) that these would start wars if these were mostly male decisions.m

To me the key is this: we need to stop looking at what is different that is really insignificant, and look at what makes us the same. The extremist element of any religion, group, etc. Will then always be on the outside, and there is power in the masses. We need to not let them crowd our heads in allowing us to think they represent something they don't. The details (wearing hijab, not eating pork, not eating shellfish, not working on th Sabbath, honouring cows, etc) are arbitrary, much like following CIO, co-sleeping. Redshirting are arbitrary if everyone can just agree that it equals loving your children and wanting what is best for them, in measurement of your own life experience. Just like honouring your own existence by your own god is important. Hat we need to identify are the small number of outliers who cannot accept that and deem to hurt others for their choices. Those are the problem children.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we take these terrorists on their word? They say they are doing it for Allah. I say we believe them.

I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is your applying what they say about themselves to all other Muslims.

ISIS has been very clear in its propaganda that one of its goals is to erase the "gray area" that exists between Muslims and the West. Communists use to call this "heightening the contradictions". They want to cause Muslims to choose between groups like ISIS and the West and the more that the West demonstrates that it is anti-Islamic, the more likely Muslims will be to choose ISIS. So, all of you who believe that blaming the entire religion is an acceptable or useful strategy are actually playing into the hands of ISIS. I doubt that is what you want to do. The best strategy is to focus your anger and hatred like a laser on that small number of Muslims behind this atrocity while making it clear to all other Muslims that you do not blame them. That would demonstrate clearly to ISIS that it's strategy has failed.

Jeff did a great job explaining this, and I agree with him.

But...I think the reason why so many people appear to be blaming all Muslims sometimes boils down to an unintentional lazy generalization...because most people understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. I also think that the crazy high number of Islamic extremists and terrorists lends itself to the perhaps unintentional sweeping generalizations...particularly since they are spread out around the world. Pretend we are in the throes of WWII and someone typed "we need to do something about those damn Germans!" Would you let it slide, or would you point out that not all Germans are bad--heck, many Germans are Jewish--it's the Nazis, not all Germans." While that would be a perfectly legitimate clarification, I'd interpret the original comment as it was likely intended (by Germans, he meant the bad ones--the ones destroying the nation's greatness and giving all of them a bad name).

Another problem: Islamic extremists have built their ideology on religion (albeit by distorting the religion and using it to manipulate people). I read an article the other day about an Imam in Indonesia calling for jihad to burn down all Christian churches. Now while most people understand that the Imam doesn't speak for all Muslims, I can try to put myself in the shoes of a Christian living in Indonesia and imagine that they might feel under attack by Muslims...I don't think that's a huge leap...even if it's not 100% accurate.

Lastly, some people are just assholes. Some people are racist, and they truly believe the hateful things they say about certain groups. There's no point arguing with them because it's really impossible to flip a person like that. That's why--contrary to all the FB posts of MLK's quote about how only love can defeat hatred--I don't believe we can "love" our way to a solution with ISIS. I wish we could, but I don't believe we can. And I don't have a solution. I'm not sure there is one (despite crazy Ben Carson's claims about his secret info on China's involvement and his magic solution).

You actually missed an even better example than Germans during World War II. Because people took the attitude you describe toward Japanese, we rounded them up and forced them into camps. While the attitude you describe is understandable, that does not make it right. I would hope that reasonable people would not want to repeat the mistakes of the past and would work to avoid them. A very easy step in that direction is by being diligent in distinguishing between extremists and ordinary people.

I agree with your second paragraph. We can't do much about an Imam in Indonesia. But, I've removed a number of posts from DCUM calling for mosques to be burnt. I do have the power to remove such posts -- and I have -- and all of us have the power to resist our country becoming the mirror image of the situation you describe in Indonesia.

The struggle against ISIS is ultimately a struggle for resources. It is doubtful we can love our way out of it. The division of resources is a zero-sum game. There will always be a loser and nobody loses willingly.

Eh, my German example was spot on because we were discussing *words* not actions. Rounding up the Japanese was an action, not a misstatement or inartful generalization.

[Anonymous]

08:39 again. I agree we can't "love" our way out of this and I'm happy to see others of various political persuasions feel the same. It's not a wake-up call if we go back to sleep.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

Well, I think you could have called him that if he killed in the name of Christianity, and his stated goal was to eliminate other religions.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Mark Ruffalo on Twitter:

Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

Well, I think you could have called him that if he killed in the name of Christianity, and his stated goal was to eliminate other religions.

This doesn't seem to be a religiously motivated terror attack. Instead it's a political statement regarding the French presence in Syria.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mark Ruffalo on Twitter:

Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks

While I agree with Mark Ruffalo (never thought I'd have a reason to type those words!), I'm not convinced *that's* the intended consequence. I think that gives the terrorists far too much credit for a basic act of violence carried out by (let's assume) very troubled and easily manipulated young men.

(Who follows Mark Ruffalo on Twitter?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This doesn't seem to be a religiously motivated terror attack. Instead it's a political statement regarding the French presence in Syria.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did you call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist? Do you think he represents Christianity?

Well, I think you could have called him that if he killed in the name of Christianity, and his stated goal was to eliminate other religions.

ISIS has killed more Muslims than any other religion.

[Anonymous]

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...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This doesn't seem to be a religiously motivated terror attack. Instead it's a political statement regarding the French presence in Syria.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This doesn't seem to be a religiously motivated terror attack. Instead it's a political statement regarding the French presence in Syria.

+1

+2

Oh for eff's sake!!!!!! Are there really 3 people in the DC metro area who feel this way?!! G-d help us all.