Tunisia? Eh, who cares.
(I suspect this is the reaction of 90% of the public to this event.)
“Short of walking into a conversation, sandblasting the brick and installing track lighting, there is no surer way to announce one is from the 1980s than to mount an assault on ‘political correctness,’ the contemporary phrase for which is ‘not being a jackass.’”
If I understand the OP correctly (and maybe I don’t), we’re not sufficiently acknowledging the role of Islam in attacks like the one in Tunisia. OK, so what were these tourists doing, going to a country that’s 98% muslims? Sounds like they willfully exposed themselves to a clear and present danger, without a thought given to the possible consequences. So, fuck 'em.
By the OP’s (apparent) logic.
Would it be any better if it were the act of the Irish Republican Army?
Only if they convert to Islam, which would mean no drinking, so . . .
Yes! So’s that we can paint all them mooslims with the same large brush!
Since when are “Salafist-jihadists” not “Islamists”?
I expect it was most likely white gun fetishists who probably bought their semi-automatic machine guns through the gun show loop hole.
They are two different things.
Islamist means a person who thinks there should be a government that is governed by Islamic law. So, Tunisia’s political party Enhada are Islamist, even though they are both relatively moderate and committed to non-violence. There are Islamists of many different theological backgrounds.
Salafist-jihadists are extreme Salafists theologically who believe in violent struggle against modernism and westernization. Some of them believe in establishing an Islamist government. Others are agnostic about governments, and believe the struggle is mainly a social/religious one.
One can be a Islamist without being a Salafist (and the majority are not), and one can be a Salafists without being an Islamist (though most probably are). In Tunisia, the main Islamist party is sufficiently moderate as to be the target for extreme Salafists–not all of whom are fighting for state power.
Yeah, not to mention that Islamist-Salafist-Jihadist has quite the cadence to it.
Whoever was responsible, what a horrible event.
I know this event is not in the least bit about me, but as it happens I was due to be in Tunis in less than three weeks time. My family and I will be on the same ship that lost 12 of its passengers in the massacre (MSC Splendida). Apparently we will now be stopping off at Valletta in Malta instead. It would have been my first visit to the African continent, but I am happy that the cruise line is playing it safe - I can wait for another time to visit Africa.
Oh fuck off, Islamist’s-Salafist-Front-Jihadist! We’re the Islamist-Salafist-Jihadist-Front!
Splitter!
Splitter!
It is obviously more correct to be a Salafia Takfiria Jihadia Frontist. all other things are not authentic.
(and it is a strange form of self centered primitive political tribalism that the reaction to this tragedy is about some american politics in what seems to be a grotesque strawman than it is about the tragedy that these takfiri scum have visited on the tunisians.)
I blame Obama.
This is not a bad presentation - it is quite true that most of the democratic islamists are not salafist in a strict sense.
and the tension between the Islamist who are not salafist is not just a a theoretical one, for those who have paid attention to the Egyptian situation, it is worthy of noting that initially at least one important salafist organization with a horror of certain aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nour party, supported the military coup in Egypt.
It is also true that most of the “jihadist salafist” are takfiri - they feel they can declare other Muslims as apostates and freely kill them. This is the DAESH ideology and the ideology of the most bloody terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda. It is not shared by most of the islamist movements and even of most of the salafiste movements.
It would be better even for the west to call these organizations not Jihadis but Takfiri.
It is more accurate and it also is better for the propaganda as the idea of the jihad, the greater or the lesser, can not be easily made negative - although the proper islamic law holds that the lesser jihad must be organized and lawful. But takfir, this is a hateful concept that is widely rejected and has no good basis in traditional law. Calling these people takfiri is a good thing, it highlights their hateful thinking and incorrect knowledge. And that they are pretending to be super muslim but they are engaging in bida3.
Darn tootin’! The Apple Liberals are much cooler.
Do you really have to make such an informative and thoughtful contribution to a Pit thread? Sheesh.
I could say fucking takfiri?