"Islamic Extremeist Terrorist", or, Just 'Terrorist'?

[Aurielius]

We seem to reached a point where calling a spade a spade is not PC. Imagine if in 1939 we could not use the term fascist Nazi's after the invasion of Poland, it makes no sense. This is an asymmetrical war that Islamic Extremist Muslims are waging, they know it but we keep debating the distinction so as not to offend the fence sitters. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is not unreasonable to call it a duck. There is a parallel between the Reich's fifth column and Muslim enclaves that are allowed to not adhere to the customs and laws of the western countries they reside in; both are / were intent on bringing western democracies to their knees. If you cannot even bring yourself to accurately define a threat then how in the world can you hope to defeat it? The only difference between the atrocities of ISIS and the Nazi's is quantity, if we give them enough time to advance their stated objectives that differentiation will become moot.

[edgeburner]

 

If you cannot even bring yourself to accurately define a threat then how in the world can you hope to defeat it?

Aye. Not only that, but, why do these liberal "PC" types continue to take some imagined high-road on Islamic extremist "terminology"? Why, when they are diametrically opposed In their very ideology in every way, shape and form you can imagine.... to strict Islamic/Sharia law?

We actually have groups that are against gay marriage on terror watch list, simply because they don't support gay marriage ....Yet, we refuse to call an Islamic terrorist a "terrorist"?

[Di0nysys]

They're both murderers and they're both extremist and blind. I suppose in the west you have a sensitivity issue when it comes to race. I can't say Black but should say "african american", can't say Chinese, but "asian american".
A sign of health is when a society is not afraid to say things as they are.
But to assume people are over the West/Arab world divide is too soon. Its gonna take a while to reconcile these two.

[Xenoshi]

We seem to reached a point where calling a spade a spade is not PC. Imagine if in 1939 we could not use the term fascist Nazi's after the invasion of Poland, it makes no sense. This is an asymmetrical war that Islamic Extremist Muslims are waging, they know it but we keep debating the distinction so as not to offend the fence sitters. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is not unreasonable to call it a duck. There is a parallel between the Reich's fifth column and Muslim enclaves that are allowed to not adhere to the customs and laws of the western countries they reside in; both are / were intent on bringing western democracies to their knees. If you cannot even bring yourself to accurately define a threat then how in the world can you hope to defeat it? The only difference between the atrocities of ISIS and the Nazi's is quantity, if we give them enough time to advance their stated objectives that differentiation will become moot.

How is this not violating the "No religious debates" rule?

 

Also, they do not call them "Islamic Extremists" because the majority of terrorists who have been detained cite political reasons, not religious ones, for their actions. Because it is a religion of over a billion people and only a minute fraction of them are considered extremists and to compare Muslims migrating to Hitler's "5th Column" is facetious and hyperbolic. This is a logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum. You really shouldn't engage in debates using fallacies so willy-nilly. It is a fallacy of irrelevance. The primary demand of most terrorist organizations comprised of fundamentalists in the middle-east have one typical goal:

The removal of the Western military from the Middle East.

 

Al Qaeda did nothing in regards to the United States until Saudi Arabia opted to have American forces in the 1990's defend Saudi Arabia as opposed to taking Osama Bin Laden's offer to protect Saudi Arabia. This was viewed by Osama bin Laden as offensive, as he believed that having the militaries of non-Muslims in the land of the prophet was wrong. Likewise, the majority of issues that groups like Al Qaeda and etc. bring up in terms of America is the fact that they want the West to stay out of the Middle East.

 

From the Pew Research Center:

 

"More than a year after the first stirrings of the Arab Spring, there continues to be a strong desire for democracy in Arab and other predominantly Muslim nations. Solid majorities in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan believe democracy is the best form of government, as do a plurality of Pakistanis."

 

From Professor Robert Pape, a foremost scholar on the rationale of Suicide Bombings who has studied every suicide bombing from the 1980s until 2003 and has come to the following conclusion:

 

"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland"

 

Gallup conducted a poll which was the largest survey of Muslims conducted to date which showed that 93% of the world's Muslims are moderate, and that only 7% of the Muslim population is "radical".

Moreover, the Gallup Poll also stated “Radicals” are politically extreme, not necessarily religiously extreme; and give political reasons, not religious reasons, for condoning terrorism. Likewise, the same poll concluded that the vast majority of Muslims surveyed want western democracy but do not want it to be imposed on them. Infact, the overwhelming majority of the people Gallup polled stated they were against the September 11th Attacks and cited religious reasons as to why.

That is why they just call them Terrorists. Because terrorists are just terrorists -- religion really doesn't have much to do with it.

 

Your assertion that extremists also want to destroy Western Democracy is also fallacious because the same surveys also found that the majority of radicals had a higher desire for democracy than others, but they believed they would never get it.

 

"Mr Esposito said "radical" Muslims believed in democracy even more than many of the moderate Muslims questioned.

'The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims,' he added.

'But they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it.'

The research also indicates most Muslims want guarantees of freedom of speech and would not want religious leaders to have a role in drafting constitutions."

Edited April 28, 2015 by Xenoshi

[Aurielius]

Sigh.... the same old liberal refrain. If we just treated the terrorists like us, then they would be perfectly reasonable. The premise presupposes that all people react or act on reasonable terms. This shows a basic inability to understand fanaticism. The mission statement of Hezbollah, ISIS and Iran is to destroy with extreme prejudice the Israeli state. This has been stated over and over without refutation by any of the aforementioned. That the colonial powers reneged their promises at the Treaty of Versailles is fact...one that is over 100 yrs old. So attempting to link post colonial politics with the current war is a far stretch of logic.

BTW the way I left religion completely out of my thesis..unless calling a Muslim Suicide Bomber a Fanatic and a terrorist is somehow a theological concept. You cannot fight what you refuse to admit exists. I know it's not PC to call a spade a spade anymore but I'm old enough and have fought enough wars not to give a damn when stating the plain truth about a group that wants me dead. Or is the constant chant of "Death to America' being misinterpreted and is actually invite for High Tea and scones?

[JimboUK]

To tackle the problem they first need to acknowledge which community has a real problem, not just with radicalisation but also with staggering levels of homophobia and misogyny, which of course won't happen because they along with their liberal appeasers will jump up and down screaming "Racist!!" at anyone who dare mention the subject.

 

and that only 7% of the Muslim population is "radical"

 

 

That's over 100 million people and that number increases to over 300 million when you include those who support the radicals.

[Xenoshi]

Sigh.... the same old liberal refrain. If we just treated the terrorists like us, then they would be perfectly reasonable. The premise presupposes that all people react or act on reasonable terms. This shows a basic inability to understand fanaticism. The mission statement of Hezbollah, ISIS and Iran is to destroy with extreme prejudice the Israeli state. This has been stated over and over without refutation by any of the aforementioned. That the colonial powers reneged their promises at the Treaty of Versailles is fact...one that is over 100 yrs old. So attempting to link post colonial politics with the current war is a far stretch of logic.

BTW the way I left religion completely out of my thesis..unless calling a Muslim Suicide Bomber a Fanatic and a terrorist is somehow a theological concept. You cannot fight what you refuse to admit exists. I know it's not PC to call a spade a spade anymore but I'm old enough and have fought enough wars not to give a damn when stating the plain truth about a group that wants me dead. Or is the constant chant of "Death to America' being misinterpreted and is actually invite for High Tea and scones?

The problem with your entire argument is that you are arguing the existence of an Israeli state is some how a necessity to the existence of Western Democracy? In no way, shape, or form does Israel have anything to do with what you previously stated. Yes, Hezbollah might have an express mission statement to destroy the Israeli state but this came, again, after said Israeli state forcibly occupied land which did not belong to them. The Israeli State continues to occupy land which does not belong to them, operates the worlds largest open air prison, and consistently violates the basic human rights of individuals living in Palestine. There is no historical basis, outside of the Bible, for a State of Israel and even then they were still given a state. All aggression by extremists against Israel still falls under the caveat of secular and political reasons, these organizations see land which they traditionally recognize as their homeland as being occupied by a foreign power. Likewise, Israel is propped up by countries like the United States of America which fuels their disdain of America.

Again. Politics.

As for the "Death to America" rhetoric, it's just that. Rhetoric. In the Revolutionary War the Colonists wanted "Death to Britain" and "Death to Taxes" but that doesn't stop them. Furthermore, Death to America is just a political slogan which was coined by Iranians during the Iranian Revolution. Mind you that in Iran the United States helped overthrow the democratically elected moderate leader in order to replace him with the West-Friendly Shah which resulted in Fundamentalists seizing power. You can hardly argue from the side of sheer democratic principle when America and Britain were deposing democratically elected leaders in the Middle East. The Iranians, at various different times, have chanted Death to: Rusisa, France, England, Israel, Saddam, and Mujjehedin Khalq. Even in Iran politicians and newspapers are discouraging the continued use of "Death to America" as making them all look crazy, basically.

 

Infact, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had more holders of American phDs in his cabinet than President Obama did. To name some:

 

• Mohammad Javad Zarif, the country’s foreign affairs minister, completed his Ph.D. in international law and politics at the University of Denver in 1988. Zarif, who was the lead negotiator in the nuclear deal, was Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations based in New York.
  
• Mohammad Agha Nahavandian, Rouhani’s chief of staff, was awarded a Ph.D. in economics on Jan. 30, 1994, from George Washington University.

• Ali Akbar Salehi, a vice president and head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, earned a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977.

As a matter of a fact, we have groups in America and in Europe that chant Death to Israel and want nothing more than to see the Jewish people exterminated....And yet we are not judged on that? In America alone you have the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, The American Nazi Party, et al. Infact, in Iran Hassan Rouahni, who is a moderate, won by a landslide in securing over 50% of the vote while the extremist hardline parties (the Death to America parties) received the bottom of the barrel in terms of voter turnout.

In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied:

“If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums"

And that isn't to even say anything about groups like Neturei Karta, which are ultra orthodox Jewish people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel and Zionism. The issue most of these organizations have with Israel, except the Neturei Karta, is purely political as even Iran has shown it would be willing to accept a two-state solution. You are simply painting entire countries of people in broadstrokes and wanting to name them religious fanatics simply because they happen to be a religion which is different form yours.

Here is another situation for you. Suppose that the fictional country of Freedomland is suddenly overthrown by a religious group, we'll call them the Bigtonians, who believe that their religion says the land belongs to them. Now suppose that Freedomland had previously been occupied by Catholics. The Bigtonians have military, political, and financial support from world super powers. Are the original inhabitants of Freedomland now Catholic Extremists because they resort to asymmetrical warfare against the people occupying and supporting the occupation of their country, or are they simply political dissidents?

For that matter, during the Revolutionary War the actions carried out by the pro-freedom Colonists meet the very definition of Terrorism. If you were against independence, you would be tarred and feathered or otherwise gruesomely punished. If you did not follow what the Sons of Liberty wanted you to follow, you could face physical mutilation and even death. Were they Anglican Extremists because they also so happened to be Anglican?

All data shows that terrorists conduct terrorism for secular, political reasons. You offer absolutely nothing besides fearmongering, emotional appeals, and ad hominem attacks because you have no solid empirical data upon which you can base your claims. Their religion is entirely irrelevant, there is no point in identifying them as "Muslim terrorists" as opposed to just "terrorists"

All you are doing is using logical fallacies to support your argument -- you have no actual data, statistics, or facts to support your argument beyond claiming the other side is just being "politically correct".

To tackle the problem they first need to acknowledge which community has a real problem, not just with radicalisation but also with staggering levels of homophobia and misogyny, which of course won't happen because they along with their liberal appeasers will jump up and down screaming "Racist!!" at anyone who dare mention the subject.

 

and that only 7% of the Muslim population is "radical"

 

 

That's over 100 million people and that number increases to over 300 million when you include those who support the radicals.

 

Out of 1,570,000,000 people, or 23% of the worlds population. By the way, that 7% of Muslims which constituted as "Radical" were any ones that believed terrorism was justified in any way, so no that number does not increase...and of those radicals, the majority of them were radical due to secular, political reasons. Again, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. There is absolutely no reason to refer to them as any religion or another.

Nobody refers to the Lords Resistance Army as "Radical Christian Terrorists" and nobody refers to abortion clinic bombers as "Extremist Christian Terrorists."

"In order to investigate characteristics that distinguish Muslim world residents who are potentially prone to extremist views, we divided respondents from the region into two groups. Classified as political radicals were those who met the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were “completely justified”, and 2) they indicate that they have an “unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of the United States. Those who did not say the attacks were completely justified were termed moderates."

Edited April 28, 2015 by Xenoshi

[HeyYou]

So, because the terrorists want to impose their religious views, and their religion, on everyone, that makes them secular? I must be missing something here......

 

Islam is also a political system, not just a religion.

[Aurielius]

"For that matter, during the Revolutionary War the actions carried out by the pro-freedom Colonists meet the very definition of Terrorism. If you were against independence, you would be tarred and feathered or otherwise gruesomely punished. If you did not follow what the Sons of Liberty wanted you to follow, you could face physical mutilation and even death. Were they Anglican Extremists because they also so happened to be Anglican?"

 

 

I think you are confusing the Wars of Reformation with the Revolutionary War. Tar and Feathering, outright shooting of neighbors ..yes... but that was over Loyalty to the Crown or to the Colonies. We didn't kill people over religion in that war. Neither did we behead our prisoners. I take exception at your the attempted comparison since it's premise is fallacious.

[Xenoshi]

So, because the terrorists want to impose their religious views, and their religion, on everyone, that makes them secular? I must be missing something here......

 

Islam is also a political system, not just a religion.

No, they don't. That might be the stated goal of an organization like ISIS, but the majority of data on terrorists indicates that this is a false narrative.

 

Infact, if you have ever actually read any of the analysis conducted on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, you would find that the overarching goal of Al Qaeda was never to implement Islam on a global basis. In its entirety Al Qaeda justifies their attacks on the United States on the fact that the United States is (a) supporting or (b) actually occupying territory which belonged to the Muslims. The American support of Israel, the invasion in Iraq, and the stationing of American troops in the Middle East has consistently been the catalyst for terrorism. The demands of Al Qaeda have not been "convert to Islam" but rather "get out of the Arabian peninsula". Any expert in studying terrorism will tell you the same thing.

 

"No such concern surfaces in bin Laden’s statements; indeed, he never mentions Western Muslims. An interesting glimpse into his perspective on Western Muslims came in a November 2001 interview, when a reporter pointed out that hundreds of Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks. In responding, bin Laden first ignored the point to reiterate the defense-of-territory theme: “If the enemy occupies an Islamic land and uses its people as human shields, a person has the right to attack the enemy. . . . The United States and their allies are killing us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine [sic], and Iraq. That’s why Muslims have the right to carry out revenge attacks on the US” (Lawrence 2005, 140). After delivering this denunciation, he nodded toward the reporter’s question with this afterthought: “Islamic law says that Muslims should not stay long in the land of infidels.” In other words, “real” Muslims should not have been in the Twin Towers in the first place. The obvious implication is that, for bin Laden, an American Muslim who lives and works in New York is not a “real” Muslim. This narrow conception implies a nonuniversal view of Islam. To bin Laden, Islam is not a creed that applies to all peoples equally. It is, principally, a tribal religion, the creed of the Arabs (whose holy documents are valid only in Arabic). In this respect, it parallels Judaism, which is also a territorially based religion, and one that does not aim to convert the rest of the world. In several letters, bin Laden summarizes his message of resistance by repeating one of Muhammad’s death-bed commands, “Banish the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula” (Lawrence 2005, 24, 187, 264, 271)—hardly a catchy slogan for a movement of world conquest"

 

"Many analysts have noted how U.S. intrusion into Muslim lands feeds terrorism. Pape says, “American military policy in the Persian Gulf was most likely the pivotal factor leading to September 11” (2005, 104). Marc Sageman makes the same point (2004, 40). Stern puts the theory in general terms: “Our military action becomes the evidence our enemies need to prove the dangers of the New World Order they aim to fight. . . . Terrorist leaders tell young men that the reason they feel humiliated is that international institutions like the IMF [international Monetary Fund], the World Bank, and the United Nations are imposing capitalism and secular ideas on them with the aim of exterminating traditional values” (2003, 279, 283). Former CIA expert Scheuer echoes the point: “For bin Laden, the most effective recruiting tool imaginable is for the Unites States to keep doing what it has been doing in the Islamic world for the past thirty years. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent insurgency there is icing on the cake for al Qaeda” (2004, 134)."

 

Unfortunately for your argument, there is no real evidence that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda want to spread Islam to the rest. Infact, analysts have concluded that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda do not want Islam to spread to the west because Bin Laden considered Islam to be an Arab territorialy defined tribal religion. They aren't necessairly "Islamic extremist terrorists who want to spread their religion to the world and crush the west" so much as they are "Terrorists who happen to be right-wing fundamentalists, practice Islam, and want the West to stay out of the Middle East."

 

From analysis conducted on the message Osama bin Laden spread, it was broken down by themes:

 

Criticism of U.S./Western/Jewish aggression, oppression, and exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples 158.75 (72%) Criticism of Saudi leadership, especially for allying with the United States and allowing U.S. troops in country 45.75 (21%) Religious comments, exhortations to martyrdom 10.00 (5%) Bin Laden’s personal life 2.75 (1%) Criticism of American society and culture 2.50 (1%) Invitation to Islam, spreading Islam to the West 0.50 (0.2%) Total 220.25 (100%)

 

Only 0.2% of the time did bin Laden ever mention spreading Islam and only 5% of the time did he make religious comment. We have 10 pages of all his statements and interviews talking about religion, only half a page talking about spreading Islam to the west, and 158 pages dealing with entirely secular and political discussion. This completely shatters the narrative that terrorists want to destroy western democracy or that they are using their terrorism as a vehicle to deliver their religion. Sometimes, terrorism is just terrorism and the religion of the people carrying it out is completely irrelevant.

 

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of these terrorist organizations predicate themselves on the assertion that their religion is under attack by the west. That is why we shouldn’t refer to terrorist organizations like ISIS as “Islamic", because doing so legitimizes their assertion that the West is somehow at war with Islam. They are political fundamentlists, they are right-wing fundamentalists. Organizations like Al Qaeda care very little about the notion of spreading a religion. A 2011 report by the US government's National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) revealed that: "In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years."

 

Which is completely at odds with the assertion that terrorist organizations are doing what they are doing in an attempt to spread their religion when the vast majority of casualties sustained by their actions are, in fact, members of said religion. Again, the evidence does not in any way support the claims you are making.

 

"For that matter, during the Revolutionary War the actions carried out by the pro-freedom Colonists meet the very definition of Terrorism. If you were against independence, you would be tarred and feathered or otherwise gruesomely punished. If you did not follow what the Sons of Liberty wanted you to follow, you could face physical mutilation and even death. Were they Anglican Extremists because they also so happened to be Anglican?"

 

 

I think you are confusing the Wars of Reformation with the Revolutionary War. Tar and Feathering, outright shooting of neighbors ..yes... but that was over Loyalty to the Crown or to the Colonies. We didn't kill people over religion in that war. Neither did we behead our prisoners. I take exception at your the attempted comparison since it's premise is fallacious.

 

No, we did not. We attacked people because of different political ideologies, which is exactly my point. The brutality you are ascribing to terrorist organizations and labeling it as Islamic you would not label what the Colonists did as "Anglican Extremism" just because they were Anglican. They were politically motivated, just as al Qaeda is politically motivated.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Xenoshi