EU to ban Islamic terrorism

[Chemical Ollie]

This is the time to demand a standardisation on the angle of bananas imported into EU! Not to forget those cucumbers!

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by germanos

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

So, we have three categories of Muslims: Terrorists (about 100); Destroyers of embassies (about 1000); and ordinary, peaceful people (about 999998900).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Poster1: "Geez, what is so sick with the Jews that they always retort to killing children? We really need to get rid of this freak culture! "

Poster2: "Don't exaggerate please. All Jews don't approve of killing children like that. It's only the militaristic ones who pose a problem"

Poster3: "blah blah, more PC bull****. If the Jews were really opposed to the murder of children, they'd actually speak up against it."

Poster4: "Poster2 is American. The Jews have an ever increasing influence in the US. It's worrisome that the Yanks let themselves be influenced like that"

Poster5: "PRAISE YAVEH"

Poster6: "I'm American too, but you can bet that I won't let me get manipulated by them Jews"

Poster7: "Hi, I'm new here. I'm Jewish, and I'm opposed to murdering children. But I can understand that an army attacks military targets, and sadly it sometimes makes colateral damage "

Poster1: "GET OUT OF HERE YOU MUREROUS SCUM!!1 "

[MrFun]

Next in the news . . . . . .


Texas state legislator bans the word "Yankee."

[Dr Strangelove]

It seems to me that from time to time we see statistics regarding polls about proportion of muslims in various countries believe that various terrorist tactics against western countries are justified.

[TCO]

insert troll

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Have you read the OP? It's non-binding. The EU is trying to get good-faith journalists (i.e most of them) to stop using a terminology that induces Islamophobi. They're doing the journo's work by looking for phrases that work, and that are actually useable.

Racist or provocative journalists will continue to use the phrase (as they'll be free to do), but at least the ordinary news outlet are going to use a better phrase.

No matter if this is non-binding or not, it still is an restriction. As several already has said, giving in on a non-binding thing is that path for a binding thing.

Worse than that, You actually say that "good journalists" are to obey certain rules if they want to continue to be "good journalists". Doesn't that scare you a bit ?


What is wrong with calling things what they are ? The killings at 9/11, madrid and london was based on religious beliefs - why should it be "disrecommended" to call it islamic terrorism ?

The general view of yours seems to be that if we doesn't say anything, then all problems just disappear. This ostriche policy has proven over and over that it doesn't work. Quite contrary - itb just buries it for some time and then explodes with much more severity.

If you try to disguise problems behind euphemisms then you actually are letting the problem getting bigger.

[Pekka]

I agree with BC. WOW!!

But I disagree with Spiffor, so I must be still half sane

[BlackCat]

I could have written most of what you have in this thread - scary ?

Actually, we often agree - it just happens that I occationally finds it appropiate to offend you

This is off OT, so let further disuscions be safed for a BC vs SC thread .

[TCO]

Why does SC wear an ominous looking trenchcoat and have his hands in his pockets. Is he armed?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
SPIFFOR

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.

To me, the meaning of terrorism is fairly clear: it's a form of political violence whose aim is to strike fear (terror) among civilians, or a civilian government.

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.

Yes, I'm serious, and not because a billion Muslipmscould feel outraged. But because some people among ca 1 billion westerners will feel inclined to islamophobia because of the phrase, and because this islamophobia will reqult in nothing good.
A phrase such as "terrorists who abusedly claim the name of Islam" (or whatever the EU comes up with) should help not triggering such an anti-muslim reaction among westerners. And in the current climate of a preliminary to the clash-of-civilizations, measures that might limit anti-islamism will help. At least in my perspective, since I definitely don't want a clash of civs.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
No matter if this is non-binding or not, it still is an restriction. As several already has said, giving in on a non-binding thing is that path for a binding thing.

Worse than that, You actually say that "good journalists" are to obey certain rules if they want to continue to be "good journalists". Doesn't that scare you a bit ?

No. I'm convinced that most journalists in Europe don't want to convey any Islamophobic message, and that they used the phrase "Islamic terrorism" for lack of any better useful phrase.

What is wrong with calling things what they are ? The killings at 9/11, madrid and london was based on religious beliefs - why should it be "disrecommended" to call it islamic terrorism ?

Considering how mot westerners have no concrete knowledge of Islam, many are likely to beive that Islam is an inherently terroristic religion. This is false. This is a misconception that is dangerous to Europe. Ergo, this is a misconception that should be fought against.

The general view of yours seems to be that if we doesn't say anything, then all problems just disappear.

This is not my general view. If we want to fight terrorism that stems from Islamic radicalism, we have to take several courses of action. I'd add that the one discussed in this thread is fairly minor IMO, but has some merit. Islamic terrorism can only be vainquished by several strategies,among which promoting az better understanding between the west and the Muslims. This decision contrbutes to restricting anti-Islamism among the western population, which is part of whatn we need if we want to win over radical Islamist terrorism.[/QUOTE]

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, I'm serious, and not because a billion Muslipmscould feel outraged. But because some people among ca 1 billion westerners will feel inclined to islamophobia because of the phrase, and because this islamophobia will reqult in nothing good.

You have a poor opinion of the westerners. According to you, all of them are unable to understand what Islam is, to the point that "some people among ca 1 billion westerners will feel inclined to islamophobia because of the phrase". You should visit book-stores, and you will discover that more than some people are actively and positively undertaking to deepen their understanding of Islam. Of course the books dealing of Islam are often written by scholars who are not afraid by facts nor by words.
Spiffor's doctrine : all westerners are stupid and all muslims are peaceful.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
You have a poor opinion of the westerners. According to you, all of them are unable to understand what Islam is, to the point that "some people among ca 1 billion westerners will feel inclined to islamophobia because of the phrase". You should visit book-stores, and you will discover that more than some people are actively and positively undertaking to deepen their understanding of Islam. Of course the books dealing of Islam are often written by scholars who are not afraid by facts nor by words.
Spiffor's doctrine : all westerners are stupid and all muslims are peaceful.

Where do you get your "all" from

I'm afraid you're fighting against a strawman here. I have no doubt that the people interested in the topic to the point of reading scholarly books will have no problem putting things in perspective, whatever phrase is in use in the media (and even if the media became outright islamophobic).

However, most people don't have an acute interest in Islam, to the point that they actively gather information from something else than the media. And the phrase "Islamic terrorism", when used systematically, suggests an inherent linkage between Islam and terrorism. Many people fall in this trap. You can see such thing even on 'Poly.

[Pekka]

BlackCat, yeah you saw it fit to mention BC first.. as in BC vs SC, not SC vs BC. Blasphemous.

TCO, he is a serial master debator. No, he's carrying a gun. A gun or a pervert, you pick.

"Considering how mot westerners have no concrete knowledge of Islam, many are likely to beive that Islam is an inherently terroristic religion. This is false. This is a misconception that is dangerous to Europe. Ergo, this is a misconception that should be fought against."

By pressuring the press and tell them 'the correct way to say this' ??? Do you even realize how China this sounds and IS?

It's important to see the implications of this suggestion, because it has negative sides to it as well as positive sides. The negatives outweigh the positives if you are about democracy.