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

[Aurielius]

The use of 'Reductio ad absurdum' is only droll if you do not have to personally point it how clever your use was. However if you actually want a debate then might I suggest some content editing of included prior posts..... and a reply short of rereading War and Peace per exchange. Familiar with the term precsis?

[MajKrAzAm]

Xenoshi actually thinks that Al-Qaeda represents some kind of third world liberationist ideology. That Osama bin Laden is a cross between Ghandhi and Che Guevara, holding an AK47 in one hand and a Quran in the other.

 

There is nothing to debate with someone who believes this. They are either a troll or an Islamist.

 

The objective of al-Qaeda is not the freedom of the Palestinians but the establishment of tyranny in the Muslim world by means of indiscriminate violence in both the Muslim and non-Muslim world, and those who confuse the two issues are idiots.

[Xenoshi]

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.)

Name them.

Al-Qaeda & its offshoots dont

Hamas Doesnt

Hezbollah Doesnt

Al-Shabaab Doesnt

Boko Haram isnt interested in spreading Islam World Wide.

 

Seriously. Name which ones have the goal of spreading Islam around the world. They might have regional aspirations for spreading Islam as Boko Haram does about enforcing Sharia law in Nigeria, but none of those groups want to spread Islam around the world.

 

As to the original topic of the debate Islamic Terrorists vs Terrorists:

 

"In a Wednesday speech on violent extremism, Obama argued the US should not "grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek."

"They are not religious leaders, they're terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam," he said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-obama-doesnt-want-to-refer-to-terrorists-as-islamic-2015-2#ixzz3YkUwBqsB"

Xenoshi actually thinks that Al-Qaeda represents some kind of third world liberationist ideology. That Osama bin Laden is a cross between Ghandhi and Che Guevara, holding an AK47 in one hand and a Quran in the other.

 

There is nothing to debate with someone who believes this. They are either a troll or an Islamist.

 

The objective of al-Qaeda is not the freedom of the Palestinians but the establishment of tyranny in the Muslim world by means of indiscriminate violence in both the Muslim and non-Muslim world, and those who confuse the two issues are idiots.

 

argumentum ad hominem and appealing to emotion. 2 for 1 Fallacy special.

 

 

For the record, not that it matters, but I am personally a Tengriist. That said, my personal views and beliefs have nothing to do with what factual data states. Che Guevara was a terrorist as well, by the way.

 

Also, the sticky for the debate rules is pretty clear on this stuff.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Xenoshi

[HeyYou]

Muslim Brotherhood.

[Xenoshi]

Muslim Brotherhood.

Is not a terrorist organization. They are simply extreme fundamentalist Muslims. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church is an extremely fundamental Baptist church.

 

It is only considered a terrorist organization by: Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE

 

In Russia they are considered terrorists for allegedly supporting the cause of the establishment of an Islamic State in the caucaus.

 

Outside of that Bahrain, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE all declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization for not really valid reasons.

 

Ostensibly Egypt declared the Muslim Brotherhood for a suicide bombing Egypt holds them responsible for in spite of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood condemned the attack and another organization, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis claimed responsibility for it.

 

Likewise, in Syria the Assad government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria as a terrorist organization due to the fact that they oppose the Assad regime, the same term that the Assad regime uses to blanket any and all opponents and rebels against them.

 

The UAE declared them terrorists only because Saudi Arabia did.

 

"Qatar was the only member of the six-nation GCC to support the Brotherhood in Egypt during the one-year rule of Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, who was toppled by the military in July. Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. are “penalizing” the Qataris for backing the organization, said Theodore Karasik, director of research at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai."

 

Likewise, Saudi Arabia has a vested concern in a group like the Muslims Brotherhood who were able to implement an Islamist government in Egypt by means of popular revolution and elections. The Muslim Brotherhood also supported the Sahwah movement in Saudi Arabia which advocated political reform within the Kingdom.

 

The White House explicitly said that it does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorists because the Muslim Brotherhood has always used non-violent means and has also rapidly condemned the terrorist attacks in Egypt which were attributed to them by an Egyptian government seeking to liquidate its political enemies.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Xenoshi

[HeyYou]

Right, depends on who you ask, who is the terrorist, and who is not. In some circles, the US of A is considered terrorists.

 

Also, they are left off some folks lists for political reasons. That doesn't make them any less of a terrorist organization.

[Xenoshi]

Right, depends on who you ask, who is the terrorist, and who is not. In some circles, the US of A is considered terrorists.

 

Also, they are left off some folks lists for political reasons. That doesn't make them any less of a terrorist organization.

Except the only countries in the world that have declared the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists are those who have done so for:

(a) Purely political reasons (Syria & Russia & Saudi Arabia & UAE & Bahrain)

(b) Based on loose allegations (Russia & Egypt)

© Fear of losing their own powerbase (Saudi Arabia)

 

Nobody has actually declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization for bonafide terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood has taken credit for no terrorist attacks and has widely condemned terrorist attacks. The Egyptians accused the Muslim Brotherhood of conducting a terrorist attack which another known terrorist group claims responsibility for. They do not fit the bill as a terrorist organization and they are not globally recognized as a terrorist organization.

 

Furthermore, the Egyptians who accused the Muslim Brotherhood of terrorism are the same Egyptian government responsible for the August 2013 Rabaa Massacre, described by the Human Rights Watch as "one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history”

 

So no, they aren't a valid example.

 

-Saudi Arabia calls them Terrorists because they support political reform inside Saudi Arabia

-Syria calls them Terrorists because they are opposed to the Assad Regime

-Russia calls them Terrorists because they allegedly support the formation of an Islamic state in the Caucasus.

-The UAE Calls them terrorists because Saudi Arabia calls them terrorists.

-Bahrain calls them terrorists because the UAE & Saudi Arabia calls them terrorists.

 

The Definition of Terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The Muslim Brotherhood has conducted exactly 0 terrorist attacks.

You will also find that the United Kingdom does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417888/Proscription-20150327.pdf

Like...5 Countries out of 195 possible countries consider the Muslim Brotherhood to be terrorists, for reasons wholly unrelated to any actual terrorism.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Xenoshi

[Aurielius]

<snip>

The Definition of Terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

<snip.

Do you seriously think that we are clueless as to the definition of Terrorism? Adding of the phonetics was a superb touch in case we had to sound out such a complex polysyllabic concept.

 

"it's bad for the peasants morale to let them know you despise them" - Cardinal Richleau

[Xenoshi]

 

<snip>

The Definition of Terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

<snip.

Do you seriously think that we are clueless as to the definition of Terrorism? Adding of the phonetics was a superb touch in case we had to sound out such a complex polysyllabic concept.

 

"it's bad for the peasants morale to let them know you despise them" - Cardinal Richleau

 

 

It was copied directly from the Oxford English Dictionary. Once again you aren't actually contributing anything factually to the argument. He was calling the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, which it is not and the only institutions which have labelled it as a terrorist organization have done so with ulterior motives. They do not fit the definition of terrorism and they are not widely recognized by any international body (The U.N) or by many countries as being terrorists. At this point the opposition is just making off-handed remarks about either my post length or making insinuations against my character. It isn't my fault that you cannot substantiate your argument with any empirical evidence.

 

Maybe read this and this, specifically the sections about staying on topic, supporting your statements with documentation, and about keeping your criticisms strictly toward the position and not the person.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Xenoshi

[Deleted1205226User]

Respect to Xenoshi for the way she participates in a potentially mined debate. I'm learning a lot.