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

matchlight said:

Much of the unspeakable violence Islamic jihadists engage in is directly approved by the most orthodox texts in Islam--the Koran itself, and the haddith, the sayings of Mohammed which interpret and fledge it out. The 14th-century Reliance of the Traveller is the authoritative, officially approved statement of what shari'ah calls for in all aspects of life, and it specifically prescribes, for example, stoning to death for homosexuals and most adulterers. It also calls for Muslims to wage jihad against Christians and Jews.

Many leftists in the U.S. and elsewhere loathe America and Western Civilization about as much as the Muslim jihadists do. So it's not surprising to see some of them constantly carrying water for the jihadists, invariably disguising their efforts as nothing more than protecting innocent Muslims from all those slack-jawed American "Islamophobes" who are out there in flyover country, clinging to their guns and Bibles. These leftists are the jihadists' natural fifth column in the West, just as the communists who were their philosophical forbears were a willing fifth column for international communism in the early years of the Cold War. These disloyal people were more than happy to take up space in America while working against it for Stalin's USSR. Nothing new under the sun.

Click to expand...

It really is quite striking how people can be so inept. "'Not every Muslim is a terrorist' -derrrrrrr" No ****, retard. That doesn't mean that Islam is a beautiful religion of peace. It just means that most people are born with an innate sense of right and wrong despite what their religion teaches.

SBu said:

One more time, because I think our European buddies just don't quite get the big picture here:

"Your assessment is wrong. Islam is a driver for terrorism because it creates a permissive environment for extreme ideology to flourish which leads the insane, mentally weak, or hopelessly socially inept to then become terrorists.

It's a religion where it's perfectly fine to stone a woman for adultery, talking bad about the prophet is punishable by death (not just for believers, but ANYONE), and where anyone or place that isn't muslim is an enemy. Islam is the enemy, and the natural enemy of western liberal democracy and personal freedom. We import muslims and islam with our lax immigration policies to our own peril.

This doesn't mean that most muslim people are 'evil' or 'violent', it means that the religion is a malicious cancer to freedom and that makes muslims dangerous."

Click to expand...

This is a pretty uninformed and generalizing opinion. But don't worry, many Americans are not good at differentiating.

German guy said:

This is a pretty uninformed and generalizing attempt. But don't worry, many Americans are not good at differentiating.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could enlighten me with a real argument instead of regurgitating leftist talking points.

German guy said:

Assuming there is such a thing as Christianity in general, I'd say yes. Simply because he acted in the name of Christianity and because non-Christians cannot support him and remain logically coherent.

Just like no non-Muslim will ever deliberately fight in the name of Islam. That simply doesn't make sense.

But just like in case of Islam, I'd say in the case of Phelps and Christianity too, choosing the religion in general as a broad identifyer, without differentiating any further, is not helpful at understanding and explaining the problem. You cannot fully understand Phelps' ideology just by reading the Bible. Just like you'd miss important elements of islamist ideology if you just read Quran.

Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the thread and I'd be happy to discuss it in detail somewhere else, it is a fascinating topic in my opinion. I would submit that religious extremists - under the name of any religion - are not practitioners of their stated religions. They merely use the guise of religion in an attempt to legitimize very earthbound human purposes and desires.

German guy said:

I'm afraid we're going in a circle here ... not sure where the problem is. I totally agree with you their actions are unjustifyable and crazy. All I want to know is if I have to shoot a rocket into an islamist camp or into a KKK office to get those who did it.

Click to expand...

:lol:

I guess the question people need to ask themselves here is why they feel it's important to understand what motivates their actions. All Terrorists commit heinous acts, whether they be motivated by religious, political, or ideological goals or whatever excuse they choose to use.

Do some see Terrorist acts by Radicals as worse than those not committed by Radicals?

I personally don't see one as worse than the other. I see all acts of Terrorisms as equally revolting.

German guy said:

Assuming there is such a thing as Christianity in general, I'd say yes. Simply because he acted in the name of Christianity and because non-Christians cannot support him and remain logically coherent.

Just like no non-Muslim will ever deliberately fight in the name of Islam. That simply doesn't make sense.

But just like in case of Islam, I'd say in the case of Phelps and Christianity too, choosing the religion in general as a broad identifyer, without differentiating any further, is not helpful at understanding and explaining the problem. You cannot fully understand Phelps' ideology just by reading the Bible. Just like you'd miss important elements of islamist ideology if you just read Quran.

Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the thread and I'd be happy to discuss it in detail somewhere else, it is a fascinating topic in my opinion. I would submit that religious extremists - under the name of any religion - are not practitioners of their stated religions. They merely use the guise of religion in an attempt to legitimize very earthbound human purposes and desires.

Serenity said:

:lol:

I guess the question people need to ask themselves here is why they feel it's important to understand what motivates their actions. All Terrorists commit heinous acts, whether they be motivated by religious, political, or ideological goals or whatever excuse they choose to use.

Do some see Terrorist acts by Radicals as worse than those not committed by Radicals?

I personally don't see one as worse than the other. I see all acts of Terrorisms as equally revolting.

Click to expand...

I think anyone committing terrorist acts are pretty much, by definition, radical.

Risky Thicket said:

So Christianity is responsible for Fred Phelps?

Click to expand...

First, and most importantly, The original question was NOT "Is Islam responsible for individual (or groups) of terrorists?" That is a different question than "Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?"

Secondly, I believe it is instructive and important to recognize Phelps as having been motivated by his religious viewpoints. My position is no different for Phelps as it was Bin Laden.

Thirdly... Apples and oranges. Phelps was a jackass extraordinaire, but he never perpetrated the sort of violence we are seeing from these religiously motivated murders, bombings, etc.

Risky Thicket said:

I don't want to derail the thread and I'd be happy to discuss it in detail somewhere else, it is a fascinating topic in my opinion. I would submit that religious extremists - under the name of any religion - are not practitioners of their stated religions. They merely use the guise of religion in an attempt to legitimize very earthbound human purposes and desires.

Click to expand...

If that is so, are you opining that most governments in the M.E. are actually not Islamic? I think you just blew my mind.

German guy said:

It just gets tricky in some cases. Say, you have a terror group somewhere in the Muslim World that fights for national independence, but also supports Muslim views. Is this secessionist or islamist terrorism then? You really have to know a lot about the exact motivation and demands of that group then, to answer that question. Even a terror group that's Muslim doesn't necessarily need to be islamist.

And yes, I noticed that some militant opponents of religion sometimes blame entire religions for the actions committed by members of that religion, regardless which role religion really played in their motivation.

Click to expand...

This may seems shocking to some, but I think outfits like Hezbollah and Hamas largely fit into this category. Both are without a doubt terrorist organizations who's members are most assuredly Muslim, but I do not consider them Islamist Terror Organizations as I do with ISIS. That is because their goals largely are focused very narrowly, and aren't threat to the West. I'm not a fan of either mind you, but it be a mistake to lump them in with the likes of AQ or ISIS.

SBu said:

Perhaps you could enlighten me with a real argument instead of regurgitating leftist talking points.

Click to expand...

Okay:

First the point I agree with you on: Islam, as it exists today, the way mainstream clerics and believers interpret it, is a problem. It was never tamed by age of enlightenment or liberalism, as Christianity and Judaism were (and arguably, Islam is more violent in the first place than at least Christianity). Because of that, way too large numbers of Muslims sympathize with islamist terrorism, and support measures and ideas that are in contradiction to our Western values.

That said, moderate and modern interpretations of Islam do exist. Just that they're unfortunately much less numerous than in case of other religions (so far). As examples, I'd mention the Ankara School or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Look them up if you want to learn more.

And then, much more important: Just like in case of every other religion too, there is a damn huge number of Muslims who simply don't take their own religion very seriously, or even give a **** about it. You know, just like Christians who don't pray or go to church, except for weddings or funerals.

Also, islamism (the ideology that drives terrorism in the name of Islam) is an ideology that is based on a very specific interpretation of Islam and incorporates many political demands and views. It is just as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, and it significantly differs from orthodox Islam or even mainstream Islam, even if the latter may not be without problems either.

Lumping all these people together, as if Islam was the Borg collective, is extremely ignorant. And it doesn't help us finding solutions either. The only thing it will do is fueling hatred against Muslims in general, creating backlashs, and that's playing into the hands of the islamists.

Hamster Buddha said:

This may seems shocking to some, but I think outfits like Hezbollah and Hamas largely fit into this category. Both are without a doubt terrorist organizations who's members are most assuredly Muslim, but I do not consider them Islamist Terror Organizations as I do with ISIS. That is because their goals largely are focused very narrowly, and aren't threat to the West. I'm not a fan of either mind you, but it be a mistake to lump them in with the likes of AQ or ISIS.

Click to expand...

Not shocking based on previous posts. As long as they kill Jewish women and children you are fine with it. How do sites such as these get polluted by this type of slime.

X Factor said:

I think anyone committing terrorist acts are pretty much, by definition, radical.

Click to expand...

I was clearly referring to radical islamists, i assume you understood that?

I guess we're on the same page in this discussion then.

X Factor said:

No I wasn't and I resent the accusation.

Click to expand...

Lighten up, X. You must have missed the :mrgreen: at the end of my post. How would I know what you are thinking? Does it look to you like I have a crystal ball up my ass?

Risky Thicket said:

Lighten up, X. You must have missed the :mrgreen: at the end of my post. How would I know what you are thinking? Does it look to you like I have a crystal ball up my ass?

Click to expand...

I can't tell while your head is so far up there. :2razz:

Serenity said:

:lol:

I guess the question people need to ask themselves here is why they feel it's important to understand what motivates their actions. All Terrorists commit heinous acts, whether they be motivated by religious, political, or ideological goals or whatever excuse they choose to use.

Do some see Terrorist acts by Radicals as worse than those not committed by Radicals?

I personally don't see one as worse than the other. I see all acts of Terrorisms as equally revolting.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you.

I once met a leftist girl who claimed Germany incarcerates "political prisoners". Huh? -- I asked what she meant. She names members of a leftist terror organization that had committed many murders and other attacks in the 70s.

I found it disgusting how easily she'd argue away and justify their deeds. Murder is murder.

Risky Thicket said:

Lighten up, X. You must have missed the :mrgreen: at the end of my post. How would I know what you are thinking? Does it look to you like I have a crystal ball up my ass?

Click to expand...

Well, no. But your dog certainly has something stuck in his mouth. :mrgreen:

Hey, it's Saturday night. Time to ease off a bit, I'm thinking.

eohrnberger said:

Well, no. But your dog certainly has something stuck in his mouth. :mrgreen:

Hey, it's Saturday night. Time to ease off a bit, I'm thinking.

Click to expand...

It's just X and me assing with each other. There's no there there.

Hamster Buddha said:

This may seems shocking to some, but I think outfits like Hezbollah and Hamas largely fit into this category. Both are without a doubt terrorist organizations who's members are most assuredly Muslim, but I do not consider them Islamist Terror Organizations as I do with ISIS. That is because their goals largely are focused very narrowly, and aren't threat to the West. I'm not a fan of either mind you, but it be a mistake to lump them in with the likes of AQ or ISIS.

Click to expand...

Not so sure about Hamas, but in case of Hezbollah, you perhaps indeed have a better chance of understanding the threat they're posing (and for whom) when you rather see them as a political terror group in favor of Shai Iran with mainly geopolitical goals, than a (usually Sunni) international islamist group with the goal of defeating and converting "the infidels".

Doesn't mean any is morally better than the other. But you need different approaches to treat pestilence and cholera.

washunut said:

Not shocking based on previous posts. As long as they kill Jewish women and children you are fine with it. How do sites such as these get polluted by this type of slime.

Click to expand...

Did you happened to miss the part where I said, "Both are without a doubt terrorist organizations?"

pbrauer said:

Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other

Click to expand...

To me - no.

There is a serious problem going on, though, where that seems to be the only thing people care about IN LIEU of action or opposition in any other form. It's as if 'what they're called' has become the only thing ot discuss.

German guy said:

Okay:

First the point I agree with you on: Islam, as it exists today, the way mainstream clerics and believers interpret it, is a problem. It was never tamed by age of enlightenment or liberalism, as Christianity and Judaism were (and arguably, Islam is more violent in the first place than at least Christianity). Because of that, way too large numbers of Muslims sympathize with islamist terrorism, and support measures and ideas that are in contradiction to our Western values.

That said, moderate and modern interpretations of Islam do exist. Just that they're unfortunately much less numerous than in case of other religions (so far). As examples, I'd mention the Ankara School or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Look them up if you want to learn more.

And then, much more important: Just like in case of every other religion too, there is a damn huge number of Muslims who simply don't take their own religion very seriously, or even give a **** about it. You know, just like Christians who don't pray or go to church, except for weddings or funerals.

Also, islamism (the ideology that drives terrorism in the name of Islam) is an ideology that is based on a very specific interpretation of Islam and incorporates many political demands and views. It is just as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, and it significantly differs from orthodox Islam or even mainstream Islam, even if the latter may not be without problems either.

Lumping all these people together, as if Islam was the Borg collective, is extremely ignorant. And it doesn't help us finding solutions either. The only thing it will do is fueling hatred against Muslims in general, creating backlashs, and that's playing into the hands of the islamists.

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?

German guy said:

Okay:

First the point I agree with you on: Islam, as it exists today, the way mainstream clerics and believers interpret it, is a problem. It was never tamed by age of enlightenment or liberalism, as Christianity and Judaism were (and arguably, Islam is more violent in the first place than at least Christianity). Because of that, way too large numbers of Muslims sympathize with islamist terrorism, and support measures and ideas that are in contradiction to our Western values.

That said, moderate and modern interpretations of Islam do exist. Just that they're unfortunately much less numerous than in case of other religions (so far). As examples, I'd mention the Ankara School or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Look them up if you want to learn more.

And then, much more important: Just like in case of every other religion too, there is a damn huge number of Muslims who simply don't take their own religion very seriously, or even give a **** about it. You know, just like Christians who don't pray or go to church, except for weddings or funerals.

Also, islamism (the ideology that drives terrorism in the name of Islam) is an ideology that is based on a very specific interpretation of Islam and incorporates many political demands and views. It is just as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, and it significantly differs from orthodox Islam or even mainstream Islam, even if the latter may not be without problems either.

Lumping all these people together, as if Islam was the Borg collective, is extremely ignorant. And it doesn't help us finding solutions either. The only thing it will do is fueling hatred against Muslims in general, creating backlashs, and that's playing into the hands of the islamists.

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?

German guy said:

Not so sure about Hamas, but in case of Hezbollah, you perhaps indeed have a better chance of understanding the threat they're posing (and for whom) when you rather see them as a political terror group in favor of Shai Iran with mainly geopolitical goals, than a (usually Sunni) international islamist group with the goal of defeating and converting "the infidels".

Doesn't mean any is morally better than the other. But you need different approaches to treat pestilence and cholera.

Click to expand...

Hezbollah essentially has imprisoned the whole of Lebanon. While it is a useful tool of Iran, it is the people of Lebanon who will suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's actions. Their leaders and fighters will be holed up in some tunnel while the population gets bombed in retaliation for the bombing of Israeli cities.

I guess from where you come from bombing Israeli cities is probably more merciful than what would have happened to their parents and grandparents had they not left Europe.

I have no problem either way. I have no problem calling Islamic terrorist groups who carry out terrorist attacks, "Islamic terrorism" and I also have no problem just labeling terrorist attacks, "terrorism. Doesnt make a difference to me, either way. But often times when we give things such as terror attacks religious labels, it deteriorates into the pathetic argument of "my god/my religion is better than yours".