Due to a number of conversations in recent threads, i want to open a discussion on the recent politically correct assault on reality- that radical islamic terrorists are in some way not radical islamic terrorists. Question #1- Is there supporting evidence to prove that the members of terrorist organizations such as the ISLAMIC State of Iraq and Syria are not islamic terrorists? ,,,,,,,,,,Question #2 What is the correct label for Anders Brevik?,,,,,,,,,,Question #3 Are there significant terrorist threats to the free world outside of Radical Islamic Terror groups?,,,,,,,,,Question #4 What are acceptable alternatives to the label "Radical Islamic Terrorists"? Possibilities may include but are not limited to: murderers, rapists, bomb makers, international criminals, murdering rapists, murdering rapist bomb makers, and murdering rapist bomb making international criminals.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or we could just call them radical islamic terrorists. I believe that not only is it unhealthy to call it something different than RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, it is dangerous, due to my fifth and final question- Question #5 Do you think terrorists care what the west calls them?
Well, plenty of other Muslims highlight things some self-identified Islamic terrorists do that goes directly against Muslim teaching. Bombing mosques, killing children, rape etc. They’re also not representative of all Muslims so the idea that they’re somehow representing Islam as a whole, as they’d like to be seen, is flawed. ”Anders Brevik”. Any other label would depend on context. That rather depends on what you mean by “threat to the free world”. There are lots of non-Islamic terrorist and other violent groups all around the world which certainly pose a threat to the safety and freedom of innocent citizens and seek to overthrow existing legitimate governments and authorities (or at least no less legitimate than them). Again, that depends on context. When do you actually need a generic term for such a wide and diverse grouping. I actually think there is an argument for distinguishing between all the small groups to consciously isolate them since one of the strengths they have is the perception of world-wide scale and scope. Yes. One of the points of terrorism is to create an image and names are very powerful elements of image. They want to be seen as Islamic because that’s one of their tools for encouraging more Muslims to join them – it helps build the Islam verses the West image that pushes all Muslims in to the category of “our enemy”. One final point; Consider the official name of North Korea; The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Is it really any of those things so why do you think they use that name?
Nothing wrong with referring to the radical Islamic terrorists as such. We all know that not all Muslims are radical terrorists, but with that in mind they do exist and pretending they do not to avoid angering passive Muslims is ridiculous.
You did not answer my question. And the words 'radical' and 'terrorist' denote fringe minority, inherently unrepresentative of the majority. Tell me where exactly I grouped all Muslims together. Again, did not answer my question. Are you dodging it, or do you really not know who he is? And would you call Osama Bin Laden a Muslim or a Radical terrorist? Provide examples. Remember, I said 'significant''. To address your semantic loophole, the free world refers to western first world nations. Like. America. so how many acronyms do I need to know in order to be politically correct? You can refer to players in the NFL as football players, or you can call each of them 'cardinals' or 'broncos', so on so forth. But a square is also a rectangle. But they ARE Radical Islamic, correct? And if you think we should dignify terrorists by referring to their desired affiliated groups, that's your decision. Also, if you think I believe Muslims are my enemy because I call terrorists such as Isis, boko harem, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Al quaeda, etc "radical Islamic terrorists", your mistakenly reading my mind. they use the name to detract from reality. They are really totalitarian dictatorship (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. But according to your logic that unfairly groups all dictators together as 'bad'. Don't see how that's necessarily unfair though...
