Where did Omar Mateen stand?

anatta said:
agreed "radical Islam" is shorthand. It's not the best -I think Bush came up with it(?) and you know how he could butcher a phrase.

"Radical Islamic Terrorists " it is then. I agree it's the best term for the west to use.
Click to expand...

Exactly the term ISIS wants us to use.
Well done.
 
christiefan915 said:
He is an American and he is a terrorist. There's nothing absurd about it.

Nobody was all about calling Dylan Roof or Adam Lanza a Christian terrorist. The excuse was that we didn't know if they were Christians.
Click to expand...

Those two never claimed to be killing in the name of Christianity.
 
Leonthecat said:
Exactly the term ISIS wants us to use.
Well done.
Click to expand...
you need to cite such claims

ISIS is a perversion of salafi Islam, and ISIS is not concerned with anything but sowing confusion among it's enemies.
"Daesh and it's folowers" is the best term, but it doesn't work well for the west.

I prefer salafi jihadists, that includes AQ also
 
christiefan915 said:
He is an American and he is a terrorist. There's nothing absurd about it.

Nobody was all about calling Dylan Roof or Adam Lanza a Christian terrorist. The excuse was that we didn't know if they were Christians.
Click to expand...

Not that you would care if Dylan was called a Christian terrorist lol. This thread proves beyond all doubt that liberals have a soft spot for Islam. Hence, the insistence for the politically correct terminology. And it would only be amusing but for the fact it affects the manner in which pols like Obama and Hillary approach the problem.

I'm ok with not offending Muslims right up to the point where innocent people are getting killed because of it.

The problem with labeling Adam Lanza a Christian terrorist is that it's non-informative. The Christian part doesn't tell us anything about his motives, where they originated or etc. It's about as nonsensical as labeling him a 'Penguin' terrorist if it happened he was hockey fan. Lanza advocated radical Penguinism?

In contrast, radical Islamic terrorism or Islamic terrorist is definitely descriptive. It tells us something about them and their ideology that simply labeling them terrorists doesn't.

Lastly, there is a distinction between terrorists whose religion is incidental and terrorists whose religion compels them to act. For instance, it happens that Tim McVeigh was a Christian [its actually debatable but let's assume he was]. McVeigh was a conspiracy theorist and anti-government wacko who happened to be Christian as well.

It doesn't happen that Mohammed Atta was Muslim. Islam wasn't incidental to his actions. Islam isn't incidental with ISIS any more than Islamic caliphates and jihad are incidental to Islam.

That's a big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top