PDA

View Full Version : Should we call it Islamic terrorism?



Osborne Russell
09-25-2013, 03:57 PM
This was the earnest contention of the blond bimbette on Fox News this morning. She wonders who is trying to mislead the American people and why.

One of the heads pointed out that the Chimp Squad took pains not to call "it" (you know) "Islamic terrorism." Bounced off like a ping pong ball off a bowling ball.

I guess the gun people/secessionists/militia and so on are carrying on "Christian terrorism". But then what to call people like Timothy McVeigh? Non-denominational terrorists?

Peerie Maa
09-25-2013, 04:08 PM
Terrorism is always political. Sometimes the objective is to impose something that may include a state religion on a population, but it is always political.
Keep it simple Sidney, it is "Terrorism".

bogdog
09-25-2013, 04:18 PM
This was the earnest contention of the blond bimbette on Fox News this morning. She wonders who is trying to mislead the American people and why.

One of the heads pointed out that the Chimp Squad took pains not to call "it" (you know) "Islamic terrorism." Bounced off like a ping pong ball off a bowling ball.

I guess the gun people/secessionists/militia and so on are carrying on "Christian terrorism". But then what to call people like Timothy McVeigh? Non-denominational terrorists?

McVeigh could accurately be described as a right-wing terrorist.

ahp
09-25-2013, 04:20 PM
When one of our drone controllers sends a Hellfire missile down into a wedding party in Pakistan or Afghanistan because on of the persons attending has been identified as a terrorist, perhaps correctly, but we also splatter women and kids (collateral damage?), what does that make us?

S.V. Airlie
09-25-2013, 04:20 PM
In many ways, the US relied on terrorists. I bet Americans were called terrorists until they won or, England said "enough! Ain't worth it...The bloody colonials!"

Osborne Russell
09-25-2013, 04:21 PM
American Exceptionalist Terrorists ?

Gerarddm
09-25-2013, 04:21 PM
Gavrilo Princip, he who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and launched WWI, reveled in the label 'terrorist'.

Chip-skiff
09-25-2013, 05:50 PM
Several wine snobs I've met could be called terroirists.

John Smith
09-25-2013, 05:59 PM
I suppose each is entitled to name it as he sees fit.

I really wish 9/11 had led to a world forum on terrorism instead of two pointless wars.

bobbys
09-25-2013, 06:40 PM
This was the earnest contention of the blond bimbette on Fox News this morning. She wonders who is trying to mislead the American people and why.

One of the heads pointed out that the Chimp Squad took pains not to call "it" (you know) "Islamic terrorism." Bounced off like a ping pong ball off a bowling ball.

I guess the gun people/secessionists/militia and so on are carrying on "Christian terrorism". But then what to call people like Timothy McVeigh? Non-denominational terrorists?.
In the 2001 book American Terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Terrorist), McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell) and that science is his religion.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#cite_note-91)[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#cite_note-92) In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).

Chip-skiff
09-25-2013, 07:04 PM
.
In the 2001 book American Terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Terrorist), McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell) and that science is his religion.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#cite_note-91)[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#cite_note-92) In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism).

So perhaps the proper ID would be US military veteran agnostic terrorist.

Full Tilt
09-25-2013, 07:10 PM
In many ways, the US relied on terrorists. I bet Americans were called terrorists until they won or, England said "enough! Ain't worth it...The bloody colonials!"

You're getting warmer.

S.V. Airlie
09-25-2013, 07:15 PM
I turned the heat on. Must be it.

seanz
09-25-2013, 08:52 PM
Several wine snobs I've met could be called terroirists.

I've known dogs that were terrierists.

Chris Coose
09-25-2013, 09:20 PM
So perhaps the proper ID would be US military veteran agnostic terrorist.

The original tbagger.

bobbys
09-25-2013, 09:27 PM
The original tbagger..

What do you have against Homosexuals?

Keith Wilson
09-25-2013, 09:45 PM
It's perfectly accurate to call Al-Shabaab islamist terrorists. Now, for perfectly good reasons, governments may find it advantageous to not use that exact term. That's OK. It doesn't change the fact that they are.

bobbys
09-25-2013, 09:52 PM
This was the earnest contention of the blond bimbette on Fox News this morning. She wonders who is trying to mislead the American people and why.

One of the heads pointed out that the Chimp Squad took pains not to call "it" (you know) "Islamic terrorism." Bounced off like a ping pong ball off a bowling ball.

I guess the gun people/secessionists/militia and so on are carrying on "Christian terrorism". But then what to call people like Timothy McVeigh? Non-denominational terrorists?.

Are all blonds "bimbettes" or do you hate women?

BrianW
09-25-2013, 10:17 PM
It's perfectly accurate to call Al-Shabaab islamist terrorists. Now, for perfectly good reasons, governments may find it advantageous to not use that exact term. That's OK. It doesn't change the fact that they are.

Thank you.

I was about to choke on PC'ism.

Keith Wilson
09-25-2013, 10:29 PM
What else would you call them? Fer Pete's sake, here's their logo - a Koran and crossed rifles. They sure aren't Buddhists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/ShababLogo.png

Steve McMahon
09-25-2013, 10:32 PM
.

Are all blonds "bimbettes" or do you hate women?

Just the ones on fox imo.

Waddie
09-25-2013, 10:40 PM
Chimp Squad

Is that a reference to President Obama?

regards,
Waddie

Osborne Russell
09-26-2013, 12:00 PM
It's perfectly accurate to call Al-Shabaab islamist terrorists.

Are they the ones that bombed the Boston Marathon?


Now, for perfectly good reasons, governments may find it advantageous to not use that exact term. That's OK. It doesn't change the fact that they are.

Whether the reasons are good, is what I took to be the Bimbette's question. Whether it's good policy. Michelle Bachman et al think, clearly not; it's evidence of Obama's Islamist agenda.


It doesn't change the fact that they are.

Then you get into that thing of all religions do it, and all religious people, so all religions and religious people are the same, whether or not they blow you up; and/or they aren't real Muslims, so they don't have a religion, they only think they do.

So if an Irishman lets off a bomb to defend The Church, does that make him a Christian terrorist?

Osborne Russell
09-26-2013, 12:04 PM
.

Are all blonds "bimbettes" or do you hate women?

Let me answer that question by asking another: should we call it Islamic terrorism?

Keith Wilson
09-26-2013, 12:15 PM
So if an Irishman lets off a bomb to defend The Church, does that make him a Christian terrorist?Sure. It has to do with their reasons for what they do. Yes, motives are always mixed - does the Irish guy think he's defending his church or driving out the Saxon invaders? Some of both, perhaps? OTOH, because it's confusing and not always straightforward to identify doesn't mean religiously-motivated terrorism doesn't exist. Al-Shabaab attacking people at random in a mall in Nairobi is a pretty clear example, as far as I can tell, although I could be wrong. Flying airplanes into the World Trade Center is probably another.


Whether it's good policy. Michelle Bachman et al think, clearly not; it's evidence of Obama's Islamist agenda.And I am Marie of Romania.

Waddie
09-26-2013, 12:37 PM
Labels can be problematic, but sometimes it's obvious what motivates terrorists, in this case they self identify. They are clearly Islamist terrorists, by their own propaganda. To the thinking person, this doesn't label ALL people of the Islamic faith as terrorists, no more than it labels ALL Christians as terrorists when a few terrorists hide behind the Christian religion when they do violence to innocent people (like bombing abortion clinics). To deny that this group is acting in the name of Allah, however well intentioned the denial, is a political correctness lacking accuracy and honesty.

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
09-26-2013, 01:17 PM
Quite right. While it may be useful for a government to use different terms, Al Shabaab's motivation is pretty clear.

What a day - first I agree with pefjr, then I agree with Waddie! http://www.zhaiduo.com/icons-directory/icons/durhamrc/shocked-smiley-9456.gif

Osborne Russell
09-26-2013, 02:01 PM
And I am Marie of Romania.

Senator, I knew Marie of Romania, and you ain't no Marie of Romania.;)

Osborne Russell
09-26-2013, 02:03 PM
To deny that this group is acting in the name of Allah, however well intentioned the denial, is a political correctness lacking accuracy and honesty.

If we don't call it Islamic terrorism, is it political correctness?

Waddie
09-26-2013, 04:10 PM
If we don't call it Islamic terrorism, is it political correctness?

Refusing to use the term Islamic terrorist is certainly politically correct, and is probably done to avoid the condemnation of all Moslems, but it is, nevertheless, in this case, neither an honest nor accurate position.

regards,
Waddie

bogdog
09-26-2013, 04:33 PM
I suppose we could use Sunni or Shia terrorists but then we'd have to have a big chart with all the different Muslim factions that have terrorist groups. We'd also would then need to have Papist terrorists, Baptist terrorists, Orthodox terrorists who could be anybody from Russian to Armenian to Greek to Ethiopian or innumerable Slavic branches.

Waddie
09-26-2013, 05:30 PM
I suppose we could use Sunni or Shia terrorists but then we'd have to have a big chart with all the different Muslim factions that have terrorist groups. We'd also would then need to have Papist terrorists, Baptist terrorists, Orthodox terrorists who could be anybody from Russian to Armenian to Greek to Ethiopian or innumerable Slavic branches.

As I said, labels can be problematic; however, sometimes we do it the way you describe. Actually, the more specific, the better in most cases.

regards,
Waddie

Osborne Russell
09-26-2013, 07:05 PM
Refusing to use the term Islamic terrorist is certainly politically correct, and is probably done to avoid the condemnation of all Moslems, but it is, nevertheless, in this case, neither an honest nor accurate position.

Still, we agree with Keith that there are good reasons to do it -- right?

Waddie
09-26-2013, 09:16 PM
Still, we agree with Keith that there are good reasons to do it -- right?

Generally, I believe that calling a spade a spade is usually better over the long term, even when it hurts. However, governments work on a different plane than a single ordinary citizen, and I could see where not being specific about the label placed on these terrorists might make foreign policy negotiations a little less difficult.

regards,
Waddie

bobbys
09-26-2013, 10:24 PM
Let me answer that question by asking another: should we call it Islamic terrorism?.

Im not sure what your point is but on this thread and others we have "chimp squad", "Bimbetts", "tbaggers" so please spare me your PC lesson.

Osborne Russell
09-27-2013, 09:54 AM
Generally, I believe that calling a spade a spade is usually better over the long term, even when it hurts.

A Chimp a Chimp!



However, governments work on a different plane than a single ordinary citizen, and I could see where not being specific about the label placed on these terrorists might make foreign policy negotiations a little less difficult.


I assume that's what the Bimbette was referring to. It's very possible that she, herself, is grappling whether to call it Islamic terrorism and wants the nationwide audience to help her out.

When it comes to diplomacy, if there are good reasons not to say it in the foreign policy context, there are good reasons not to say it in any context, right? You would be doing something and then undoing it.

Keith Wilson
09-27-2013, 09:59 AM
. . .if there are good reasons not to say it in the foreign policy context, there are good reasons not to say it in any context, right?Nah. Depends on the context. It may makes a lot of difference what words Obama or Kerry choose. Nobody much cares what we write here.

Concordia 33
09-27-2013, 10:09 AM
So if an Irishman lets off a bomb to defend The Church, does that make him a Christian terrorist?

You seem to view terrorism as a solely based on one's religion. I think terrorism is political-cause based. In in one case that meant some Islamists from al-Qaeda flew a plane into the world trade towers. And there are many other such examples. However:


Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations to further their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism) groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-britannica-8) An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncombatant) for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. Thesymbolism of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_of_terrorism) can leverage human fear to help achieve these goals.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-9)


I don't think it is the sole domain of any religion - some might argue that a Catholic that shoots a doctor from an abortion clinic is practicing a small scale form of terrorism. I also don't think it is the domain of religion in general, but as Keith eloquently pointed out, it is still terrorism.

Waddie
09-27-2013, 12:32 PM
Osborne Russell; A Chimp a Chimp!

That isn't the context I meant when I said I prefer to call a spade a spade. It mostly refers to the importance of not lying to yourself about things that matter. In the military I was taught to respect the rank, if not the individual, so that's why you will often see me refer to the president as Obama, but never with a derogatory slur like "Chimp", (unless I'm trying to make a point to show some forumite how offensive it is). So I do try to respect the Presidency even when I oppose the policies of the man in that position. However, I believe the policies are fair game to be called whatever a person chooses to call them.

"Chimp", and "Chimp squad" are terms that make the author look petty and small minded. I've never seen the more reputable Bilge rats use those terms; maybe they were raised with better manners than that. I have seen them rip the policies, though.... :)

regards,
Waddie

PhaseLockedLoop
09-27-2013, 12:36 PM
Keith says: "Al-Shabaab attacking people at random in a mall in Nairobi is a pretty clear example..." I agree it's terrorism, though I'd point out that attacking people in what I hear is the most up-scale mall available is not "at random". Just after 9/11 there was much talk about guarding such places as Mr. Rushmore--the reasoning being that the symbols of our freedom were under attack. I'd say the towers and the Pentagon were not selected so much for their symbolic value as because they housed people who were viewed as actual enemies.

What about the bombing of Panama, aka Just Cause? A clear example of terrorist bombing, in my opinion. Or the wiping out of whole villages in Vietnam, because "suspected VC sympathizers" were thought to be there? How about the Contras? And then there's the non-bombing terrorism, like the kind Clinton practiced in Iran, leading to the death of half a million children.

I think terrorism is sickening, whoever practices it. We gotta keep it in perspective, thought.

Osborne Russell
09-27-2013, 03:34 PM
That isn't the context I meant when I said I prefer to call a spade a spade. It mostly refers to the importance of not lying to yourself about things that matter. In the military I was taught to respect the rank, if not the individual, so that's why you will often see me refer to the president as Obama, but never with a derogatory slur like "Chimp", (unless I'm trying to make a point to show some forumite how offensive it is). So I do try to respect the Presidency even when I oppose the policies of the man in that position. However, I believe the policies are fair game to be called whatever a person chooses to call them.

"Chimp", and "Chimp squad" are terms that make the author look petty and small minded. I've never seen the more reputable Bilge rats use those terms; maybe they were raised with better manners than that. I have seen them rip the policies, though.... :)


http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/shock_and_awe_10_years_later

Policy schmolicy. Too late. The issue now is reparation and atonement. Whether The Chimp decides to devote his remaining years to it is up to him, but there is no other redemption for him.

The rest of you people don't seem to get it. The failure to justify the war in Iraq isn't a drop in the polls. It's not losing an election. You brought death and destruction to millions of innocent people. It's a crime, a war crime. Doesn't matter if you like international law, or if you think it's a good idea. The debate was had, a decision was made. Your position was rejected. It's the law and you will obey. The United States has pledged its honor upon it.

Ten years later, you do not dispute it, because you can't. You don't even know what I'm talking about, because you don't want to know, because, at best, you are intellectually dishonest to the degree that you will bring death to millions without even knowing what the F you are doing. This means you are intellectually dishonest to the point that you are morally contemptible -- at best. At worst, you're not stupid and vicious, you're just vicious. By the strongest possible demonstration, a war of aggression.

Waddie
09-27-2013, 05:06 PM
Policy schmolicy. Too late. The issue now is reparation and atonement. Whether The Chimp decides to devote his remaining years to it is up to him, but there is no other redemption for him.

This version makes you look quite juvenile. People are generally less likely to give serious attention to your statement and will usually simply dismiss it as partisan ranting.


Policy schmolicy. Too late. The issue now is reparation and atonement. Whether Bush decides to devote his remaining years to it is up to him, but there is no other redemption for him.

Now you sound like an adult with a reasonable position. I, for one, would be more willing to give it serious consideration and less likely to simply dismiss it as another partisan attack.

regards,
Waddie

Sam F
09-27-2013, 05:14 PM
Sure. It has to do with their reasons for what they do. Yes, motives are always mixed - does the Irish guy think he's defending his church or driving out the Saxon invaders? Some of both, perhaps?

The "Irish guy" terrorist could not possibly believe his was defending the Church since the Church told him he could do no such thing. And told him and told him and told him.
No excuses on that front.

Peerie Maa
09-27-2013, 05:40 PM
The "Irish guy" terrorist could not possibly believe his was defending the Church since the Church told him he could do no such thing. And told him and told him and told him.
No excuses on that front.

See post #2. That was about imposing a political system which has a state religion.

Keith Wilson
09-27-2013, 05:44 PM
The "Irish guy" terrorist could not possibly believe his was defending the Church since the Church told him he could do no such thing. And told him and told him and told him.Sure he could. You'd be amazed at what people can believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Certainly can't blame the church, though. But that was really a hypothetical case; the IRA was always much more political than religious.

Sam F
09-28-2013, 06:19 AM
Sure he could. You'd be amazed at what people can believe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Well that's a psychology problem. F'instance George W Bush was told by not one but two Popes that the Iraq War was unjust and immoral and he paid no attention. But not listening/paying attention is, as I indicated, no excuse.


Certainly can't blame the church, though. But that was really a hypothetical case; the IRA was always much more political than religious.
Yep.

Syed
09-28-2013, 06:43 AM
As per my knowledge about Islam, it would be unfair to call any type of terrorism as Islamic because Islam absolutely forbids killing of any sort except in war. Moreover, that is for the sake of self-defense or as a consequences of death sentences passed by the courts.

Even during wars it is limited to those people who are fighting, whereas, it is a heinous sin to kill children, women, elderly and even cattle and pets. Destruction of places of worship, property and crops is also forbidden at the battle field.

Every Muslim is very clearly directed not to spread chaos on earth in any form.


Here, I would like to quote a verse of the Holy Quran (religious scripture of Muslims); “if any one slew a person ...it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity.” (Surah 5 : Verse 23)

Sam F
09-28-2013, 07:12 AM
As per my knowledge about Islam, it would be unfair to call any type of terrorism as Islamic because Islam absolutely forbids killing of any sort except in war. Moreover, that is for the sake of self-defense or as a consequences of death sentences passed by the courts.

Even during wars it is limited to those people who are fighting, whereas, it is a heinous sin to kill children, women, elderly and even cattle and pets. Destruction of places of worship, property and crops is also forbidden at the battle field.

Every Muslim is very clearly directed not to spread chaos on earth in any form.


Here, I would like to quote a verse of the Holy Quran (religious scripture of Muslims); “if any one slew a person ...it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity.” (Surah 5 : Verse 23)

Syed, I appreciate your view and I wish it were more widespread in Islam but others obviously don't agree.
Apparently neither does the Koran:

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

There are 109 verses of that sort and you also face the burden of Islamic history.
I'm glad that you believe what you do Syed, but it just doesn't work for Islam and the actions of many Muslim's deny your view as well. This is more typical:
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Syed
09-28-2013, 07:45 AM
God bless you Mr. Sam F.

Sam F
09-28-2013, 09:24 AM
God bless you Mr. Sam F.

I appreciate that Syed, but it doesn't address the issue of Islamic terrorism.
You say that terrorism can be no such thing while there are millions (according to polls*) of Muslims.
Not being Muslim, this is not my problem. It most definitely is a problem for Muslims who don't believe that Islam justifies terrorism.


*20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children
55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.

Peerie Maa
09-28-2013, 10:41 AM
I appreciate that Syed, but it doesn't address the issue of Islamic terrorism.
You say that terrorism can be no such thing while there are millions (according to polls*) of Muslims.
Not being Muslim, this is not my problem. It most definitely is a problem for Muslims who don't believe that Islam justifies terrorism.


*20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children
55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.

I suspect that even if true (and one should always cross check SamF';s statements) the problem is that these idiots have been told by unscrupulous preachers that there is a "Holy War" to be fought. Not true of course because only states can declare war, but it might reconcile Surah 5 : Verse 23 with all of the verses Sam cherry picked.
Of course when you consider the Israel Palestinian conflict, religion takes a back seat to the abuses that are taking place so those fall in a different category.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2013, 11:38 AM
One branch of a religion or ideology is always calling another branch a fake, which is one thing, but then they want you to join in, which puts you in the middle, and for what?

What we need is some terminology that recognizes the split without taking sides. Sometimes you want to take sides, sometimes not, but it's important to make it clear, eh?

If you say "Islamic terrorists" you allow, even if you don't intend to, the inclusion of Muslims who oppose terrorism. Not accurate, not fair, not wise.

If you say "alleged Islamic terrorists", it's unclear whether "alleged" applies to Islamic, or terrorists, or both. The uncertainty causes a lot of squabbling and general confusion, e.g. the Fox bimbette; and this is too important a topic to be dealt with that way.

How about, "allegedly Islamic terrorists". "Allegedly" is an adverb which only applies to "Islamic". IOW there is no question that they are terrorists, but there is some question whether they are Islamic, because some say they are, others say they aren't.

If you say, "self-described Islamic terrorists", again there is the problem of two adjectives -- which is intended to apply to what? My impression it that most will describe themselves as Islamic but not terrorists, which means the description is inaccurate as to them.

I think the adverb formulation is best -- "allegedly Islamic terrorists".

Why bother? Accuracy, fairness and divide and conquer. If someone objects to being called "allegedly Islamic" let them argue that they are truly Islamic. That's an argument they can have with other Muslims, that I can get into or not, as it may suit me. As to being terrorists, yes, that is what I am calling them, without having to immediately and laboriously add that I'm not talking about every single Muslim in the world -- only the allegedly Islamic ones.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2013, 11:50 AM
This version makes you look quite juvenile. People are generally less likely to give serious attention to your statement and will usually simply dismiss it as partisan ranting.



Now you sound like an adult with a reasonable position. I, for one, would be more willing to give it serious consideration and less likely to simply dismiss it as another partisan attack.


I want to give every easy way out I can. It's a test of your character. The gravity of the accusation is such that if you allow consideration of who makes it, or how, to hold you up for more than a moment, you're not facing it. That means spending the rest of your life laboring to rationalize away the accusation and the refusal, in the fear that you may fail, and your self-esteem would collapse. Why not face it?

Waddie
09-28-2013, 11:55 AM
Osborne Russell; If someone objects to being called "allegedly Islamic" let them argue that they are truly Islamic. That's an argument they can have with other Muslims, that I can get into or not, as it may suit me. As to being terrorists, yes, that is what I am calling them, without having to immediately and laboriously add that I'm not talking about every single Muslim in the world -- only the allegedly Islamic ones.

Very well stated position. In fact, I tend to agree with you. Your solution is an accurate, honest description that is more specific without being too wordy. "Allegedly" may come in handy for other descriptions as well. I will try to remember to use it.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
09-28-2013, 11:58 AM
I want to give every easy way out I can. It's a test of your character. The gravity of the accusation is such that if you allow consideration of who makes it, or how, to hold you up for more than a moment, you're not facing it. That means spending the rest of your life laboring to rationalize away the accusation and the refusal, in the fear that you may fail, and your self-esteem would collapse. Why not face it?

On this one, I stand by my assertion. Calling someone a "Chimp" reflects more negatively on your character than on his. You simply look like another partisan kook instead of a serious thinker.

regards,
Waddie

leikec
09-28-2013, 12:03 PM
On this one, I stand by my assertion. Calling someone a "Chimp" reflects more negatively on your character than on his. You simply look like another partisan kook instead of a serious thinker.

regards,
Waddie

You should listen, Osborne. I've essentially said the same thing to you several times...

Jeff C