• 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
IslamicSIL, what's so unidentifiable?
 
Really? Your explication of this ridiculous claim should be interesting.

Not really. In fact my claim is self evident. We don't really NEED an explanation, but I will play along for some reason.

I said the following statement is childishly devoid of logic:

If the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, then Islam can't be the driver for terrorism.

If the vast majority of apples are red, then "granny smith apples" can't be apples.
If the majority of people believe the world is flat then proving the world is spherical could not be a driver for Ferdinand Magellan.

"Argumentum ad populum" and/or "Proof by example" fallacies.

You really have no business participating in a debate if you are going to use those sorts of non arguments and stand behind them when shown they are wrong. Do you still stand behind your erroneous bias: if most muslims do not support acts of violence then Islam cannot be a driver for violence?

That answer is actually interesting.

P.S. I am having fun eviscerating you. Please give me more opportunity.
 
IslamicSIL, what's so unidentifiable?

Many states use terrorism to advance their agendas, not just the Islamic State.


The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:

Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

Odom also said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.
 
Yes. The terrorists are carrying out their terrorism in the name of Islam. Most terrorists carry out their terrorism in the name of a political ideology or cause so they are known by that ideology or cause. These scumbuckets ideology is Islam. I also don't remember people crying when the Buddhist sect carried out that sarin gas attack in Tokyo and were referred to as Buddhists or when the KKK identifies as a Christian group.
 
Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other

Not if it continues to fan the flames of Islamophobia.

16527024602_2aae29dfac.jpg

Unless, of course, we start talking about all the times that Christians shoot, bomb, and otherwise kill people even in the present day.
 
Yes, don't let apologetic behavior get the best of you.

At then end of the day they're ****ing muslims, no ifs ands or buts.

Just like how the KKK (a good number of them anyway) at the end of the day are Christian.

To say anything otherwise is dishonest and stupid.
 
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.

It doesn't get any more false than that...

If the vast majority of Americans are Christian, then Christianity can't be the driver for the KKK or the Westboro Inferior subhuman church.
 
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 has everything to do with the motivation of the people who are engaging in terrorist activity, which is what we're trying to identify. Just because every Muslim on the planet isn't a terrorist doesn't mean that the majority of terrorists today aren't acting out of their Muslim faith.
 
It has everything to do with the motivation of the people who are engaging in terrorist activity, which is what we're trying to identify. Just because every Muslim on the planet isn't a terrorist doesn't mean that the majority of terrorists today aren't acting out of their Muslim faith.

The results of this poll are frightening to me considering the clarity of the need to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. You put it well.

The thing that scares me is there are people running around who are so blind to such an obvious truth.
 
To me it entirely depends on the motives for the action and the media outlet's propensity to highlight the POTENTIAL motives of other such instances.

If there's a reason to suggest that an individuals religious views are the primary, or one of the primary, driving motives for their criminal action than it'd stand to reason that it would be appropriate to highlight that fact in the interest of presenting the facts.

This is especially true in situations where a news organization will provide such information in other instances. If they'd suggest a killing was a "gang killing", if they'd highlight a shooter had "tea party leanings", if they're going to speculate that it was a "hate crime" because the attacker was white and the victim was black, then it'd stand to reason that if they're being a fair and unbiased provider of information to the public then they'd indicate that the terrorism was of the "islamist" variety. If the news organization goes out of it's way to not indicate potentially group/identity based motives in any such instances, then it'd make sense to not do so in an instance of islamic terrorism.
 
No, but I don't think it should be avoided like the plague when its true either. If depends on whether its relevant. If the terrorist himself claims to be a Muslim and recited Islamic prayers while carrying out the act or terror or is publicly commended by Islamic groups for the killings who claim a religious connection then that information IMHO is germane. If there is no religious connection to the act or terror itself, then probably not, such as Ted" Kaczynski.
 
Back
Top Bottom