EU to ban Islamic terrorism

[Velociryx]

Nacht,

Oh lord. Please, PLEASE learn to read in context.

Clearly the snippet you quoted was from the reply I made to Germanos (we were talking about governments passing laws such as Emancipation and Universal Suffarage) at that point and NOT......NOT about the EU in that instance.

Look before you leap.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

But hey, if you want to play the out of context, fantasy quote game, I'll play along.

Here's you (with your secret message bolded for emphasis):

We're talking here about an institute who's job it is to hand out guidelines to avoid confusion in translations. Kind of relevant since the EU has 20 official languages.

Talking about restrictive laws, banning or freedom of speech is ridiculous in this context.

I can be just as silly.

-=Vel=-

[germanos]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But when the government turns to restrictive laws, rather than empowering ones, I think history shows that their record is....not as good.

point taken

I would say too, that the term "Islamic Terrorist" has value.

It has use.

But a very limited one. Would the 9/11 attackers have stricken you as your main suspects? (if yes, how come the security guys failed to make the same connection?).
Would you have thought of the WTC as a most likely target for them? (I didn't) Would you have thought they would be crazy enough to attack the Pentagon?

And isn't there the Nation of Islam? Plenty of Muslim Blacks. (not to metion Somali's etc.)

But you're probably right: the next terror-act in the US will be carried out by other non-suspect muslims (the first being 'friendly' Saudi's)

[Nacht]

You know, I read it in the context of this thread. A EU guideline leading to an outrage about banning and discussions about restrictive government laws.

[Dr Strangelove]

So if a suicide bomber strikes the EU buildings in Belgium and leaves a note demanding that the EU submit to sharia law what will the EU call it?

[Nacht]

A terrorist act I guess, supposing they follow this guideline. It might get some media coverage as well.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So if a suicide bomber strikes the EU buildings in Belgium and leaves a note demanding that the EU submit to sharia law what will the EU call it?

own goal

[Velociryx]

But a very limited one. Would the 9/11 attackers have stricken you as your main suspects? (if yes, how come the security guys failed to make the same connection?).

Believe me, I could rant ENDLESSLY about the incompetence of our government and investigative beaureaus. Total suckville. But this would be, I think, too far off topic for this thread. Suffice it to say that yes, there's much to be said about the failings of the folks who were supposed to be on guard against such things.

Further, I agree. Limited value. Sure. But not valueless. Not utterly without value. This is, IMO, an important distinction. It's easy to ban something that is utterly without value, but (especially in the case of a "voluntary ban" if a thing has some value, how much good do you suppose the voluntary ban will be? And is not the next logical step (assuming someone has a bug up his butt for this issue) an in-voluntary one?

Would you have thought of the WTC as a most likely target for them? (I didn't) Would you have thought they would be crazy enough to attack the Pentagon?

NYC is a big city. We agree that the info is of limited value, but hopefully I will be able to acquire a bit more. At the very least, I can be on guard against a narrower field of suspects, as opposed to having to consider the population of "everyone" as suspect. Which is...daunting (ie., if someone says I need to be on the lookout for an IRA Terrorist, I would prolly focus on someone with a discernable accent....on the notion that most members of the IRA are...Irish, and thus, have accents. Surely not everyone with an Irish Accent will be IRA, however, with this information, I can certainly narrow the field of who to look for, and this is, in fact, useful information to have).

And isn't there the Nation of Islam? Plenty of Muslim Blacks. (not to metion Somali's etc.)

Like I said...gives me some information...not all. More than I had before tho....a gun is better than a stick, but if a stick's all you got....

But you're probably right: the next terror-act in the US will be carried out by other non-suspect muslims (the first being 'friendly' Saudi's)

I could also rant endlessly about our ties with Saudi. Our government is filled to the gills with a bunch of corrupt pansy-assed *******, no doubt. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get rid of all of them and start over, but again, that's for another thread.

[Velociryx]

You know, I read it in the context of this thread. A EU guideline leading to an outrage about banning and discussions about restrictive government laws.

Excellent. If you read that much, then you probably read enough to understand that Germanos and I were having a side conversation in the thread....tangential to, but not directly related to, the topic at hand.

You are aware that this happens now and again on 'poly's OT, yes?

And since I'm fairly certain that your reply will be in the affirmative, kindly don't intentionally misrepresent my words again.

Thanks.

-=Vel=-

[germanos]

Given the limited value of putting labels to the terrorists, one must also take into account the harm that may come from this labeling. This may also be more a topic for another discussion.

Fact is that, unfortunately, Europe suffers from many other terrorist threats. It's been mentioned before: IRA, ETA, Communist, Fascist and other.
It therefore seems to me more productive to speak about either terrorism as a whole, or narrow it down much more then simply 'Islamic'.

Our_man spoke about the distinction made in the IRA scenario.
The ETA and it's acts are here maily described as 'Basque sepratists'and not as plain 'Basque' etc.

If there is a need to call the beast by its name, then I think we should find a more specific term that is not a general one as 'Islamic', as there are a billion people adhering to that, and there is only a small fraction of them thinking it's a good idea to blow (yourself) up (in a) shopping mall.

[Velociryx]

Okay....I don't really agree, but I certainly see where you are going with your line of thinking.

I think that the term itself already makes the distinction, because it is composed of two words.

Islamic.

Religious orientation. Covering some 1 billion people. Recently, some, but surely not all people affiliated with this religious orientation have had a raging hard-on for blowing buildings and people into teentsy pieces in western countries--and these would be the subset that would likely fall into the second category as well....

Terrorist.

One who commits an act of terror.

I do not believe that anyone can or will confuse the two, nor become confused on the point that one can easily be one or the other of these, without being both (that is to say, I think it is common knowledge that one can be a follower of Islam and not be a Terrorist, and that one can be a Terrorist and not be a follower of Islam).

On the other hand, if one falls into both categories, I don't see particular harm in pointing that out, or in making that fact known. We do not, after all, owe the terrorists anything.

Do we?

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

SPIFFOR

Terrorism doesn't necessarily mean mass-murder. When the ETA kills a mayor or a councillor, it's terrorism too, even though it is aimed.

If I follow you, the terrorist describes actions from totally innocuous to mass murdering with any lethal possible consequences in between. And this would normally ask for details making the meaning clearer.
GERMANOS

if terrorists decide to bomb something without causing even a single death, their act might very will a terrorist act. Good examples of this are the many IRA bombings that were preceded by warnings to the police so that the buildings could be evacuated.
(disclaimer: the IRA also planted plenty of bombs without proper warning)

You enrich the Spiffor’s description by this interesting addition of terrorists “who decide to bomb something without causing even a single death”; some sort of benevolent terrorists ! It seems quite reasonable to sort in two categories those really different kinds of terrorism.

SPIFFOR

The phrase "Islamic terrorism" gives the impression that the terrorism is mainstream in Islam, that Islam as a whole is linked to the terror attacks

Are you serious ? According to you, because about ten (or twenty) terrorists attacks have been made by 50 (or 100) Muslims, attacks that have been claimed back by Islamic organisations or authorities, they should not be qualified of Islamic attacks under the motive that one billions Muslims feel outraged. They should be outraged by the fact that their50 brothers in religion have committed horrible crimes, not by the description of the murderers. How can honestly be outraged one billions of people because 50 of them have attracted qualifications, even unpleasant.

VEL

Who's With Me?

A phrase like "Islamic terrorist" seems accurate to me, if said terrorist made known that his attack was directed by, and done to honour his his god, or his religious leaders. He's Islamic. He's a terrorist. Check and check. The term accurately describes him. And I don't see the harm in that.

I am with you !
Did you listen to the tape of the flight 93 (or 94?) ? Perfect illustration of the Islamic character of 9/11;

PEKKA

'terrorists anonymous'

:


GERMANOS

It therefore seems to me more productive to speak about either terrorism as a whole, or narrow it down much more then simply 'Islamic'.

If there is a need to call the beast by its name, then I think we should find a more specific term that is not a general one as 'Islamic', as there are a billion people adhering to that, and there is only a small fraction of them thinking it's a good idea to blow (yourself) up (in a) shopping mall.

What productivity are you talking about ? The billions Muslims could help more in trying to control their own religion than in destroying embassies or claiming that they are outraged by accusations that Muslim criminals are Muslims.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Nacht
A terrorist act I guess, supposing they follow this guideline. It might get some media coverage as well.

So in the future if an al-Qaeda wannabe bombs a train an European PM won't feel obligated to try to name the source for his constituents? "Yes, this was an act of terror of somekind, but the EU lexicon forbids me to name the type." This might have helped a Spanish PM.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

This might have helped a Spanish PM.

You mean the one who said it were a Basques?

[germanos]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
You enrich the Spiffor’s description by this interesting addition of terrorists “who decide to bomb something without causing even a single death”; some sort of benevolent terrorists ! It seems quite reasonable to sort in two categories those really different kinds of terrorism.

Where do I say they are benevolent terrorists?
Reminder: it's me who says that terrorists can even attack very dead concrete, while it's YOU who say that terrorists need to mass-murder in order to qualify.
Meanwhile I'm curious to the terms you propose for your and mine terrorism.

What productivity are you talking about ? The billions Muslims could help more in trying to control their own religion than in destroying embassies or claiming that they are outraged by accusations that Muslim criminals are Muslims.

WTF? Billions of muslims are destroying embassies? You've got to be kidding.