No, what caused this is US and British Troops violence on Iraqis. At least the Brits will be out of that equation in seven months and counting.
No, it will take a generation to put things right. Invading Iraq probably delayed it by twenty years.
Good! The War on Stupid Nomenclature has begun.
Now, hopefully, we can extract ourselves from ridiculous, flame-fanning foreign adventures, and our intelligence services and police can carry on catching terrorists without creating more of them.
maybe that’s because no Catholic theologians decreed that the infidels must die, and the sacred martyrs will be rewarded with 77 virgins.
For example, a few years ago, Monty Python made a satirical movie about Jesus himself, and–gasp!— the Church didn’t issue a single fatwa.
Are you honestly equating the two terms?
Are you honestly suggesting that the IRA terrorism was terrorism not for independence or autonomy or redressal of grievances, but in support of Catholicism and/or Catholic supremacy?
Are you honestly claiming that if there was a global conspiracy of Catholics who were committed to using civilian targeted violence in support of imposing Canon Law on the world, that Catholic terrorism wouldn’t be an accurate phrase?
Is there anything that makes the word “Islamic” inaccurate when describing the actions of Muslims, fighting for Muslim supremacy, who say in their own words that Islam is their motivation and their rationale and their ultimate concern?
Do you contend that on every level, from ideological to organizational, Islamic terrorism is no different from any other form of terrorism, and thus the adjective “Islamic” serves no viable purpose?
Do you honestly contend that Islamic terrorism is anything but an accurate description?
FinnAgain, perhaps Pjen wasn’t being totally consistent in his analogy, but the words “Irish terrorism” were in fact used to describe the actions of the IRA during The Troubles. This alienated many peaceful Irish citizens and led to sentiments like “Being Irish means we’re guilty/So we’re guilty one and all”. “Irish Republican terrorism” was more accurate.
Personally speaking, speaking as someone who has chosen to, and is fine with, living where I do, in an area with a large Islamic minority, my Islamic neighbours are for the most part friendly, pleasant, peaceful, law-abiding people, and good neighbours. If I can avoid alienating them when specifically identifying their bad minority if I have to, rather than tarring them all with the same brush, I’d like to. Which is why “Islamist terrorism” would be more precise.
Neither will the Christian fundies, and they are far more powerful.
They won’t. Despite the paranoid fantasies of the warmongers, the Islamic fundies are weak. That’s why they use terrorists instead of armies against us. You say you are afraid of them succeeding; well, how could they succeed ?
And if Islamic Fundamentalism is such a big threat, perhaps we should stop doing things that help them, like our Iraqi conquest and slaughter.
Yes, there is an inaccuracy. Because as well as being a description of the terrorists, it is also an implication that the actions are those inherent in Islam itself, not just of one (mis)interpretation of it.
Having also lived in such an area and had very simlar experiences, I couldn’t agree more.
:dubious: A few nutcases in one country wield more power than Islamic extremists from London to Jakarta?
Terrorism?hyper inflation in the housing market?Gun crime?
Mass imigration,struggling Health service ?
Nah Gordons got much more important things on his agenda.
Putting a halt to childhood obesity for one.
Its good to know the country is in safe hands.
Many millions, not “a few.” And they are in the most powerful country in the world, and have great influence there. And America does have the power to end civilization, which many of the Christian fundies want, and they do have the power to push for such things as the Iraq conquest; Islamic fundies simply don’t have the power to create a world Islamic theocracy.
A FEW??!?!!!?
They control the entire Republican party, and currently, they control the White House, too.
Well, I can certainly understand that, and I would agree that Irish Republican terrorism would, indeed, have a higher degree of accuracy.
It still smacks a bit of PC absurdity to me, however, to remove all identifyng adjectives and identify something simply as “terrorism” or “extremism”(although I know that’s not what you’re suggesting). Now, I don’t believe that it’s a good idea to deliberately set out to inflame people’s passions, but nor do I feel that it’s always a valid course of action to bow to those same passions.
To be honest, I’m a bit torn. While it’s certainly laudable to not deliberately offend someone, it seems a bit like giving into an irrational demand to not use a valid description simply because it’s not as precise as possible. I don’t, for instance, get upset if someone talks about American foreign policy or New York politics, or what have you.
Again, not saying anybody should deliberately offend, and yes, using a term with more precision is always better… but not using one because people who shouldn’t be offended by it, are… well, it strikes me as wrong. But not wrong enough to get upset about, just wrong enough to talk about a bit on the 'net.
I agree on that point without reservation, and will endeavor to use that label in the future. Although, to be fair, I could easily see some Islamists getting upset because although they are Islamists, they don’t support Sharia.
That seems awfully close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. I don’t agree that it’s an implication that the whole of Islam, every last believer, would have the same belief. But such beliefs certainly are part of Islam, be it in various sects, communities, or what have you. When young men, the world over, go to Iraq to embark upon “jihad”, I think it is certainly fair to say that is an Islamic belief even if not all Muslims believe that Jihad should be violent rather than spiritual.
Just because, for instance, violent jihad might be, say… an “Iranian Shia Islamic belief” (and also a “Saudi Wahabist Islamic belief”) doesn’t mean that it’s not a subset of all Islamic beliefs. And while I certainly agree with jjimm that certain terms can be more accurate, I do not believe that that the simple adjective “Islamic” is inaccurate, simply less accurate. I suppose we could say that it has one significant digit instead of three as in Iranian Shia Islamic…
Much like, for instance, mikvah is a Jewish custom even if Reform Jews don’t practice it and Communion is a Christian practice even if Baptists don’t practice it. Or like baseball is an American game even if all Americans don’t play it.
I do believe there to be a fairly sizable semantic gulf between “This is an Islamic belief” and “All, most, or the majority of Muslims believe this.”
Agree with you characterization of the Islamic Community of east Oxford as friendly, pleasant, peaceful and law abiding ans as good neigbours. I have memories of the community from the seventies and eighties when I was very involved there in community relations. Do the Patels still run Divinity News agents?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/news/terror.php
Here’s a more nuanced look at what’s actually happening- and it’s got nothing to do with whether it’s right to label terrorists as ‘Islamic’ terrorists or not- it’s about the fact that you can’t fight a war against an abstract ideal.
Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology, and I think Brown is right to change the emphasis of the conflict.
‘Islamic terrorism’ is not only less accurate, but it has the potential to mislead. Or to reinforce inaccurate or incorrect stereotypes or beliefs among the public. Which, when alternatives are available, why it is a good idea for politicians to avoid it. Which is where we started, isn’t it?
Two other thoughts: first, you could only use a phrase such as ‘Saudi Wahabist Islamic Extremism’ if that was actually the case, and known to be so. Note in the OP’s article the lack of direct links confirmed between the latest attacks and any particular extremists. Secondly, when politicians are making public statements, they are also talking to Muslims, and to use a phrase such as ‘Islamic terrorism’ is perhaps more like talking to a priest about ‘Christian abortion clinic bombings’?
Don’t be so fucking silly.
Do you honestly believe that when British troops leave Iraq the war on terror will be over?.
Not a cat in hells chance
Because if you do believe that then there is something seriously wrong with you.
So you believe that leaving Iraq will mean that our homeland will be safe from more attacks :dubious:
Hey look, there’s that flying pig again
No, it is because an ally of the UK was the chief sponsor of Irish terrorism. That ally has since graduated to exporting terror in bigger and better ways.
The British are famously circumspect in the language they use and delicately phrased the IRA discussion so as not to offend.
Safer, most likely. Although much of the damage is already done. Certainly being in Iraq isn’t going to make Britain the slightest bit safer.