• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?


  • Total voters
    33

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other
 
You need to be able to spot a trend in order to stop a trend. If you simply label this as terrorism or 'workplace violence' then you are ignoring the trend and strangely accepting it as normal somehow.
 
I don't think so, but I think it's important to label a terrorist a terrorist.
 
You need to be able to spot a trend in order to stop a trend. If you simply label this as terrorism or 'workplace violence' then you are ignoring the trend and strangely accepting it as normal somehow.
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?
 
Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other

No of course not

Only the person needed identified and their reasoning for their terrorism/attacks.

Example if a person who is muslim, christian, black, white, gay, straight etc decides to blow up large Pharma company like Abbott Labs because they feel they are responsible for their child's death what does it matter what religion they are . . . . . .and race would only play a role if they were at large
 
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?

It identifies their particular TYPE of radicalism. Islam is what motivates them, it is Islam that drives their behavior, and it is in the name of Islam that they engage in their violent actions. Not all muslims are terrorists, of course, in fact that vast majority are not. But it is Islam that unites groups like ISIS. Placing the word Islam in front of the word terrorist simply helps define the particular brand of terrorism being discussed. For example, these are not environmental terrorists, or engaged in race based terrorism. They are religious terrorists, and the religion that motivates them is islam.
 
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?

It would be a mistake to think of Islam as simply a religion. It is also a culture, and one that is at violent odds with the west because of it's fundamental opposition to western values.
 
Yes, it's important to know what kind of terrorists you're dealing with. Don't be vague for the sake of political correctness, it's asinine.
 
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?

So what you are saying is the President Obama was completely wrong in his comment about Christian atrocities - correct?

Or are you being the LIBERAL PS correct is cursing Christians while declaring their religion is totally irrelevant to Muslims?
 
It would be a mistake to think of Islam as simply a religion. It is also a culture, and one that is at violent odds with the west because of it's fundamental opposition to western values.

Islam is a religion of violence and began as a religion of war, violence, forced submissiveness and intolerance.
 
I don't think so, but I think it's important to label a terrorist a terrorist.

When the US supports them they are "freedom fighters", when the US doesn't support them they are terrorists. In fact on DP it would likely be just as difficult to get a consensus definition of "terrorist" as it would be a consensus definition of "God".
 
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?

How does millions of peaceful Muslims make Islamic terrorism not Islamic terrorism? It's not confidence inspiring when our leaders (or whoever) seem to be unaware of what's at issue.

Whether it's right wing, Islamic, environmentalism etc. terrorism, call it what it is.
 
How does millions of peaceful Muslims make Islamic terrorism not Islamic terrorism? It's not confidence inspiring when our leaders (or whoever) seem to be unaware of what's at issue.

Whether it's right wing, Islamic, environmentalism etc. terrorism, call it what it is.

as long as there is no hatred generated toward muslims
 
When the US supports them they are "freedom fighters", when the US doesn't support them they are terrorists. In fact on DP it would likely be just as difficult to get a consensus definition of "terrorist" as it would be a consensus definition of "God".

Really? You think the attack in France is ambiguous? ISIS? If anyone sees any value in ISIS, they're messed up.
 
as long as there is no hatred generated toward muslims

Ok, if you'll all do me a solid and guarantee no more hatred towards Jews and Christians.

Great, all the worlds problems solved right here at DP.
 
It identifies their particular TYPE of radicalism. Islam is what motivates them, it is Islam that drives their behavior, and it is in the name of Islam that they engage in their violent actions. Not all muslims are terrorists, of course, in fact that vast majority are not. But it is Islam that unites groups like ISIS. Placing the word Islam in front of the word terrorist simply helps define the particular brand of terrorism being discussed. For example, these are not environmental terrorists, or engaged in race based terrorism. They are religious terrorists, and the religion that motivates them is islam.

If the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, then Islam can't be the driver for terrorism. By the way, what's the difference between a Muslim terrorist and an Islamic terrorist? The options in the poll are somewhat limited.
 
Really? You think the attack in France is ambiguous? ISIS? If anyone sees any value in ISIS, they're messed up.

Al Qaeda = Freedom fighters

Al Qaeda = Terrorists

Which is correct?
 
I'd like it if we would be better at labeling non-Islamic terrorists as such.
 
Al Qaeda = Freedom fighters

Al Qaeda = Terrorists

Which is correct?

Terrorists.

Your turn;

ISIS = Freedom Fighters

ISIS = Worthless terrorist ****ing douchebags?
 
Only if you think it is important to correctly identify the enemy. (/irony)
 
I voted "yes", but that was assuming that their terrorist acts are connected to their religion. As it perhaps is, in most cases. When someone commits an act of terrorism in the name of an islamist organization, of course his religion matters.

But assuming there is a case a person who happens to be Muslim participates in a terrorist act with an entirely unrelated agenda -- say, for animal protection, or for communism --, then I don't think his religion matters. It would only result in false conclusions if his religion was emphasized, in that case.
 
I voted "yes", but that was assuming that their terrorist acts are connected to their religion. As it perhaps is, in most cases. When someone commits an act of terrorism in the name of an islamist organization, of course his religion matters.

But assuming there is a case a person who happens to be Muslim participates in a terrorist act with an entirely unrelated agenda -- say, for animal protection, or for communism --, then I don't think his religion matters. It would only result in false conclusions if his religion was emphasized, in that case.

That's fair, someone happening to be a member of a certain religion committing horrible acts is different than someone committing those acts in the name of that religion.
 
I voted "yes", but that was assuming that their terrorist acts are connected to their religion. As it perhaps is, in most cases. When someone commits an act of terrorism in the name of an islamist organization, of course his religion matters.

But assuming there is a case a person who happens to be Muslim participates in a terrorist act with an entirely unrelated agenda -- say, for animal protection, or for communism --, then I don't think his religion matters. It would only result in false conclusions if his religion was emphasized, in that case.

And that is a point that many on this forum have been missing in concerns to individuals who happened to be Christian committing atrocities in the last few hundred years. Well said.

Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other

As others have stated, you can't address a problem until you identify with it.
 
Was Timothy McVeigh Muslim or Islamic?
 
Back
Top Bottom