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

[Aurielius]

Sigh...Anglican Extremism died with Cromwell and the Restoration....which by my count is 200 years before the Revolution.

[Harbringe]

 

 

 

So what are you in 3rd or 4th year University level Political Science studies or is it more than that , because your arguments are spot on . Also very impressed with your draw on facts and the composition of your writing.

 

Sorry guys he's just kicking your a$$ , haven't seen a thumping like that in awhile.

[Xenoshi]

Sigh...Anglican Extremism died with Cromwell and the Restoration....which by my count is 200 years before the Revolution.

It doesn't matter when "Anglican Extremism" died. The Colonists were Protestant/Anglican and they committed acts of Terrorism. By your notion that we should call the extremist terrorists in the Middle East Islamic Terrorists, we should also refer to the Colonists i.e The Sons of Liberty as Anglican Extremist Terrorists. They were Anglican. They were Extreme. They were terrorists. It follows the same liner train of logic you are insisting we use in that you want to specifically brand them as "Islamic Terrorists" just because (a) They are Muslim (b) They are extremists and © They are terrorists. Even though factual data shows that their religion has next to nothing to do with why they are terrorists and even though data also clearly shows that the majority of their victims are from the exact religious group you want to ascribe to them a moniker based on their religion. Ergo, by the same principle it can be asserted that the Sons of Liberty were Anglican Extremist Terrorists. The fact that their religion had nothing to do with their motivation is irrelevant. Both Al Qaeda and the Sons of Liberty had/have political, secular goals for their actions. They just also happen to be Muslims, but their policy isn't to expand Islam and it isn't to spread their religious ideology -- their stated mission is to remove the West from lands which belonged to the Muslims.

 

I'm not really going to keep debating this with you because you're ignoring all facts on the situation and your entire argument is predicated on nothing more than your personal beliefs and feelings on the situation, which is a really poor way to debate. You have no facts to substantiate your claims and when I defeat your arguments, you deploy red herrings such as the situation with Israel, which was entirely unrelated to my original response to your post. When I try to explain to you how your logic is fallacious, you just ignore it and keep focusing on the fact that Anglican Extremism wasn't a thing. That is exactly my point. Terrorists are Terrorists. Full Stop. No prefix, no suffix. The religion of the terrorist in question is irrelevant, especially when the academic consensus is pretty much that religion is not the main factor in their terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the guy who was the big bad terrorist for so long, spoke very little about religion and spoke at length about the secular and political motivations of Al Qaeda.

 

To Osama bin Laden, the chief terrorist, the secular and political issues were the forefront of Al Qaeda, not religion. It is just terrorism. They are right-wing fundamentalists. Calling them Islamic Extremist Terrorists is pointless because it not only plays into their narrative that the West is attacking Islam, but it misconstrues the issue by superimposing their religion when it isn't a factor. They could be Catholics, they'd still just be terrorists. No one refers to The Lords Resistance Army as "Christian Extremists Terrorists". Nobody calls abortion clinic bombers "Christian Extremist Terrorists". Nobody calls the KKK "Christian Extremist Terrorists". You don't refer to the IRA as "Catholic Extremist Terrorists". The IRA are "Terrorists" or "Irish Nationalist Terrorists". When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building nobody rushed to call him the "Atheist Extremist Terrorist" or the "Catholic Extremist Terrorist", depending on what you believe in regard to his spirituality.

 

But as I said, I'm done. In my eyes this debate is over. You can offer no solid factual reason grounded in objective logic to refute any of the claims I have made. Your entire argument is marred with personal opinion, fallacies, and your own personal bias on the situation.

 

So why is it that we should refer to terrorists who happen to be Muslims as "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" when we do not make the similar distinction for any other groups? Nobody thus far has actually provided a solid reason as to why this instance should be an exception? There is no reason to superimpose religion as a prefix to the title "Terrorist", especially not when the majority of terrorist groups are motivated by political movements. Right Wing Fundamentalist Terrorists? Definitely.

 

 

 

So what are you in 3rd or 4th year University level Political Science studies or is it more than that , because your arguments are spot on . Also very impressed with your draw on facts and the composition of your writing.

 

Sorry guys he's just kicking your a$$ , haven't seen a thumping like that in awhile.

 

 

I'm pursuing a Masters in History. I also quite enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Xenoshi

[Aurielius]

Gentlemen...Sigh ..another college student on summer break. Nice writing style, revisionist history, but decidedly overly long manifestos. I have a Masters in History, an 'amicus' suggestion.... you might want to trim down your writing style before submission of your thesis. First it was Surenas ( who was concise and acidly brilliant), Then we had Markarth ( didactic and repetitive) and then we had the uber enthusiastic Colorwheel..if it's summer then it must be another college student convinced of their superior intellectual grasp on the 'truth'. Sheesh... I miss Surenas, she could puncture an argument in four lethal sentences, at least she had a firm grasp on the concept of 'brevity being the soul of wit'.

Well it's a long summer so..so be it.

[kvnchrist]

 

Sigh...Anglican Extremism died with Cromwell and the Restoration....which by my count is 200 years before the Revolution.

It doesn't matter when "Anglican Extremism" died. The Colonists were Protestant/Anglican and they committed acts of Terrorism. By your notion that we should call the extremist terrorists in the Middle East Islamic Terrorists, we should also refer to the Colonists i.e The Sons of Liberty as Anglican Extremist Terrorists. They were Anglican. They were Extreme. They were terrorists. It follows the same liner train of logic you are insisting we use in that you want to specifically brand them as "Islamic Terrorists" just because (a) They are Muslim (b) They are extremists and © They are terrorists. Even though factual data shows that their religion has next to nothing to do with why they are terrorists and even though data also clearly shows that the majority of their victims are from the exact religious group you want to ascribe to them a moniker based on their religion. Ergo, by the same principle it can be asserted that the Sons of Liberty were Anglican Extremist Terrorists. The fact that their religion had nothing to do with their motivation is irrelevant. Both Al Qaeda and the Sons of Liberty had/have political, secular goals for their actions. They just also happen to be Muslims, but their policy isn't to expand Islam and it isn't to spread their religious ideology -- their stated mission is to remove the West from lands which belonged to the Muslims.

 

I'm not really going to keep debating this with you because you're ignoring all facts on the situation and your entire argument is predicated on nothing more than your personal beliefs and feelings on the situation, which is a really poor way to debate. You have no facts to substantiate your claims and when I defeat your arguments, you deploy red herrings such as the situation with Israel, which was entirely unrelated to my original response to your post. When I try to explain to you how your logic is fallacious, you just ignore it and keep focusing on the fact that Anglican Extremism wasn't a thing. That is exactly my point. Terrorists are Terrorists. Full Stop. No prefix, no suffix. The religion of the terrorist in question is irrelevant, especially when the academic consensus is pretty much that religion is not the main factor in their terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the guy who was the big bad terrorist for so long, spoke very little about religion and spoke at length about the secular and political motivations of Al Qaeda.

 

To Osama bin Laden, the chief terrorist, the secular and political issues were the forefront of Al Qaeda, not religion. It is just terrorism. They are right-wing fundamentalists. Calling them Islamic Extremist Terrorists is pointless because it not only plays into their narrative that the West is attacking Islam, but it misconstrues the issue by superimposing their religion when it isn't a factor. They could be Catholics, they'd still just be terrorists. No one refers to The Lords Resistance Army as "Christian Extremists Terrorists". Nobody calls abortion clinic bombers "Christian Extremist Terrorists". Nobody calls the KKK "Christian Extremist Terrorists". You don't refer to the IRA as "Catholic Extremist Terrorists". The IRA are "Terrorists" or "Irish Nationalist Terrorists". When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building nobody rushed to call him the "Atheist Extremist Terrorist" or the "Catholic Extremist Terrorist", depending on what you believe in regard to his spirituality.

 

But as I said, I'm done. In my eyes this debate is over. You can offer no solid factual reason grounded in objective logic to refute any of the claims I have made. Your entire argument is marred with personal opinion, fallacies, and your own personal bias on the situation.

 

So why is it that we should refer to terrorists who happen to be Muslims as "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" when we do not make the similar distinction for any other groups? Nobody thus far has actually provided a solid reason as to why this instance should be an exception? There is no reason to superimpose religion as a prefix to the title "Terrorist", especially not when the majority of terrorist groups are motivated by political movements. Right Wing Fundamentalist Terrorists? Definitely.

 

 

 

So what are you in 3rd or 4th year University level Political Science studies or is it more than that , because your arguments are spot on . Also very impressed with your draw on facts and the composition of your writing.

 

Sorry guys he's just kicking your a$$ , haven't seen a thumping like that in awhile.

 

 

I'm pursuing a Masters in History. I also quite enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

I don't know who is more accurate but dismissive arrogance doesn't gain you any points here.

[Lisnpuppy]

All right people. Though it is admirable that you have taken a topic that could have easily went into the disallowed "religious" area I am afraid that this is beginning to get a bit more personal than it should.

 

For craps and giggles I am going to post this. I think it would be handy for all that jump into these waters:

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

Take some time and look over it. If you "resemble that remark" so to speak...well..stop. :)

 

Get back to the facts. Stop throwing pointed and un-pointed personal barbs or this will be another that goes down the drain. Shame really as I was starting to get interested *brushes off history degree*.~Lisnpuppy

[Aurielius]

In deference to Sage of the South..I'll stick to facts.

 

Anglican Extremism.. sloppy term signifying almost nothing contextually . Anglicans ( Church of England) are the UK equivalent of US Episcopalians. In colonial America the northern colony of Vermont and Maine were mostly Low Church Evangelicals, Massachusetts predominately Presbyterians & Methodists (but most if not all were definitely adherents of the Cromwellian Low Church), Pennsylvania was Quaker, Amish and Lutheran, Kentucky was mostly ex Irish and Scottish Baptists, New York still had a strong Dutch Calvinist backdrop. Maryland was Catholic..so that leaves you sparsely populated colonies of Virginia, the Carolina's and Georgia. So were exactly is this supposed Anglican Hegemony residing? The term you might be looking for but didn't use is Protestant Extremism. I freely admit I cherry picked what I decided to harpoon..... but it was a Hubris target rich environment.

[Harbringe]

 

 

 

So what are you in 3rd or 4th year University level Political Science studies or is it more than that , because your arguments are spot on . Also very impressed with your draw on facts and the composition of your writing.

 

Sorry guys he's just kicking your a$$ , haven't seen a thumping like that in awhile.

 

 

I'm pursuing a Masters in History. I also quite enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

 

 

 

I figured it was something along those lines , but going after your Masters , impressive. Remind me to avoid your pitchfork. lol

[Xenoshi]

 

 

Sigh...Anglican Extremism died with Cromwell and the Restoration....which by my count is 200 years before the Revolution.

It doesn't matter when "Anglican Extremism" died. The Colonists were Protestant/Anglican and they committed acts of Terrorism. By your notion that we should call the extremist terrorists in the Middle East Islamic Terrorists, we should also refer to the Colonists i.e The Sons of Liberty as Anglican Extremist Terrorists. They were Anglican. They were Extreme. They were terrorists. It follows the same liner train of logic you are insisting we use in that you want to specifically brand them as "Islamic Terrorists" just because (a) They are Muslim (b) They are extremists and © They are terrorists. Even though factual data shows that their religion has next to nothing to do with why they are terrorists and even though data also clearly shows that the majority of their victims are from the exact religious group you want to ascribe to them a moniker based on their religion. Ergo, by the same principle it can be asserted that the Sons of Liberty were Anglican Extremist Terrorists. The fact that their religion had nothing to do with their motivation is irrelevant. Both Al Qaeda and the Sons of Liberty had/have political, secular goals for their actions. They just also happen to be Muslims, but their policy isn't to expand Islam and it isn't to spread their religious ideology -- their stated mission is to remove the West from lands which belonged to the Muslims.

 

I'm not really going to keep debating this with you because you're ignoring all facts on the situation and your entire argument is predicated on nothing more than your personal beliefs and feelings on the situation, which is a really poor way to debate. You have no facts to substantiate your claims and when I defeat your arguments, you deploy red herrings such as the situation with Israel, which was entirely unrelated to my original response to your post. When I try to explain to you how your logic is fallacious, you just ignore it and keep focusing on the fact that Anglican Extremism wasn't a thing. That is exactly my point. Terrorists are Terrorists. Full Stop. No prefix, no suffix. The religion of the terrorist in question is irrelevant, especially when the academic consensus is pretty much that religion is not the main factor in their terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the guy who was the big bad terrorist for so long, spoke very little about religion and spoke at length about the secular and political motivations of Al Qaeda.

 

To Osama bin Laden, the chief terrorist, the secular and political issues were the forefront of Al Qaeda, not religion. It is just terrorism. They are right-wing fundamentalists. Calling them Islamic Extremist Terrorists is pointless because it not only plays into their narrative that the West is attacking Islam, but it misconstrues the issue by superimposing their religion when it isn't a factor. They could be Catholics, they'd still just be terrorists. No one refers to The Lords Resistance Army as "Christian Extremists Terrorists". Nobody calls abortion clinic bombers "Christian Extremist Terrorists". Nobody calls the KKK "Christian Extremist Terrorists". You don't refer to the IRA as "Catholic Extremist Terrorists". The IRA are "Terrorists" or "Irish Nationalist Terrorists". When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building nobody rushed to call him the "Atheist Extremist Terrorist" or the "Catholic Extremist Terrorist", depending on what you believe in regard to his spirituality.

 

But as I said, I'm done. In my eyes this debate is over. You can offer no solid factual reason grounded in objective logic to refute any of the claims I have made. Your entire argument is marred with personal opinion, fallacies, and your own personal bias on the situation.

 

So why is it that we should refer to terrorists who happen to be Muslims as "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" when we do not make the similar distinction for any other groups? Nobody thus far has actually provided a solid reason as to why this instance should be an exception? There is no reason to superimpose religion as a prefix to the title "Terrorist", especially not when the majority of terrorist groups are motivated by political movements. Right Wing Fundamentalist Terrorists? Definitely.

 

 

 

So what are you in 3rd or 4th year University level Political Science studies or is it more than that , because your arguments are spot on . Also very impressed with your draw on facts and the composition of your writing.

 

Sorry guys he's just kicking your a$$ , haven't seen a thumping like that in awhile.

 

 

I'm pursuing a Masters in History. I also quite enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

I don't know who is more accurate but dismissive arrogance doesn't gain you any points here.

 

There is no 'dismissive arrogance', I simply stated my lack of interest in continuing the debate any further. The opposition isn't offering any real concrete arguments grounded in any sort of scientific fact whereas I've been using empirical data to back up my statements.

 

In deference to Sage of the South..I'll stick to facts.

 

Anglican Extremism.. sloppy term signifying almost nothing contextually . Anglicans ( Church of England) are the UK equivalent of US Episcopalians. In colonial America the northern colony of Vermont and Maine were mostly Low Church Evangelicals, Massachusetts predominately Presbyterians & Methodists (but most if not all were definitely adherents of the Cromwellian Low Church), Pennsylvania was Quaker, Amish and Lutheran, Kentucky was mostly ex Irish and Scottish Baptists, New York still had a strong Dutch Calvinist backdrop. Maryland was Catholic..so that leaves you sparsely populated colonies of Virginia, the Carolina's and Georgia. So were exactly is this supposed Anglican Hegemony residing? The term you might be looking for but didn't use is Protestant Extremism. I freely admit I cherry picked what I decided to harpoon..... but it was a Hubris target rich environment.

 

The religion of the people in question does not matter, as you are currently so elegantly arguing and completely defeating your original argument with. Just as the religion of the Colonists is irrelevant and the religion of the Sons of Liberty were irrelevant in their terroristic actions, the religion of Middle-Eastern extremists is wholly irrelevant. You are continuing to go in circles with this and focusing on the phrase "Anglican Extemism" when as I said a handful of times the religion doesn't matter, I specifically picked Anglican Extremism as an example of how absurd it is to attach onto terrorism as a prefix. It didn't matter what religion the Sons of Liberty actually adhered to, nor does it matter what religion the Colonies actually adhered to. It doesn't matter what religion Middle-Eastern terrorists are. They're just terrorists.

So where do we stop? Islamic Extremist Terrorism? Because there are branches and sects of Islam exactly akin to what you just listed for allll the different colonies. Ibadi Extremists, maybe? Wahhabi Extremists? Because Osama bin Laden practices Wahhabism. Sunni Extremists? Shi'a Extremists Terrorists? Salafi Extremist Terrorists? Hanafi Extremists? Shafi'i Extremists? Maliki Extremists, maybe?

 

The Houthi Rebels overruning Yemen are Zaidi Shiites. Boko Haram are Salafists? The leader of Al Qaeda is a Qutbist.

 

Again, there is no reason to differentiate Middle Eastern extremists simply because they are terrorists. Nobody refers to Hutaree Militia as Christian Extremist Terrorists even though the Department of Homeland Security found the Hutaree Militia had more firepower than the terrorists arrested for 9/11 on them and the fact that the Hutaree Militia was planning on staging a violent revolt and establishing a "Christian Republic". The Hutaree Republic even refers to themselves as "Christian Warriors" but nobody is saying "We should call them Christian Extremist Terrorists".

 

Also, the Sons of Liberty were primarily in Boston and New York. The Official Religion of New York as chartered in 1614 until 1845 was Anglican/Church of England. The official religion of Massachusetts of which Samuel Adams, prominent participant of the Boston Tea Party, was a member of was Congregational protestantism. The Sons of Liberty were founded in Boston and later set up in New York. So, again, Protestant/Anglican Extremist Terrorists evidently.

 

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the religion of the Colonists was wholly irrelevant in classifying their political and secular terrorism, if the religion of the KKK is entirely irrelevant in their terrorism, and if the religion of the Hutaree is completely irrelevant in how we describe them than the religion of Middle-Eastern terrorists is wholly irrelevant in classifying their political and secular terrorism. Your argument does nothing to disprove anything I've said. Also, in my one post I did say Protestant/Anglican.

 

By the by The Church of England was the official religion of 5 of the 13 Colonies, with the Congregational Church being the official religion of 3.

[HeyYou]

al qaeda is only one of many extremist groups. Some of which do indeed want to impose their values on the rest of the world. (I would also point out the the US is the country that created al qaeda in the first place..... oooops.)