EU to ban Islamic terrorism

[our_man]

Originally posted by Nacht
Keeping the terms islamic and terrorism somewhat apart seems sane to me. Can't remember that IRA acts were always referred to as Roman Catholic Terrorism.

Sigh... As I've explained many, many times before on this forum that's because the IRA were not killing in the name of Catholicism. They were committing terrorist acts for a nationalist agenda and the reason why relgion played a role was simply due to the fact that most Protestants were Unionists, and most Catholics were Nationalists. Consequently in the media it was labelled correctly as Loyalist and Republican terrorism.

This is in contrast to Islamic terrorism, where the main driving force is the Islamic faith.

[DAVOUT]

Attacks on police, armed forces etc. are much better refered to as armed resistance, guerilla or similar.
Offcourse groups as ETA, IRA etc. mixed both terrorism and guerilla, and thus became torrorist groups, making attacks on 'occupying forces' acts that were carried out by terrorists.

Those who give the blow name themselves resistants, and those who receive the blow name them terrorists. As we receive the blow , there is nothing wrong in naming the attacks Islamic terrorism. Incidentally, the initiative of the qualification originates from the organizers.

There is a lot to be said in favour of this proposal, whose principle aim (as I have understood it) is to make clear that 'islamic terrorism' is nothing better or worse then any other form of terrorism

The problem with the above neutral appreciation is that “any other form of terrorism” is not precise enough : look at the definition of terrorism given by the EU hereunder.

The EU’s interinstitutional termbank (IATE) defines a "terrorist" as "a person who commits a violent act for political reasons."

Under the guise of a large generalization, “a violent act” seems a strange understatement when we are talking of murders of innocents by the tens, or by the hundreds, or by the thousands. So, I would not adopt your favourable attitude unless “a violent act” is replaced by “mass murder”.

[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.

[Velociryx]

I think we should do MORE "precise naming."

Why let criminals hide behind relative anonyminity?

If a radical Islamic Organization blows something up, let's call it Islamic Terrorism.

If the IRA blows something up, let's call it IRA Terrorism.

Cockroaches scatter in the light.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

No, if the IRA blows something up, let's call it "Irish terrorism"

[Spiffor]

If Israel attacks something, let's call it a "Jewish assault"

[Velociryx]

And, let's be fair...if the USA attacks another country unprovoked, let's call it what it is.

American Terrorism.

I'm game. MAYBE it'll make people make it stop.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Jews murder children, and intend to continue

As usual, the Jews have no regards for the life of children

From the BBC:

Israel warned on Tuesday it would step up its bombardment of Gaza, despite the deaths of 16 Palestinians, including two children, in artillery attacks.

[Velociryx]

Well, they have MORE regard for what they're doing (ie., what they hope to gain) than they do for the kids who got killed....enough so that they don't mind taking the risk in the future, but sure. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Call 'em on it.

People get pissed enough about it, maybe something will change.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Jews murder children, and intend to continue

As usual, the Jews have no regards for the life of children

From the BBC:

Israel warned on Tuesday it would step up its bombardment of Gaza, despite the deaths of 16 Palestinians, including two children, in artillery attacks.

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 "

[Pekka]

Spiff, are you making these remarks in attempt to defend the EU ban? If so, there's no hope for you in the field that already had no hope for you...

[germanos]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Those who give the blow name themselves resistants, and those who receive the blow name them terrorists.

...snip...

So, I would not adopt your favourable attitude unless “a violent act” is replaced by “mass murder”.

On the first: that is what it appears to have developed into. It doesn't help understanding the underlying issues, let alone contribute to the solution.

On the second: 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)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, they have MORE regard for what they're doing (ie., what they hope to gain) than they do for the kids who got killed....enough so that they don't mind taking the risk in the future, but sure. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Call 'em on it.

People get pissed enough about it, maybe something will change.

Thing is, it's not "Jews" who are doing that. It's the Israeli army. Those are two different things.

If you call this "Jewish assault" or "Jewish terrorism" (as is often done in the Middle-East), you're going to reinforce the prejudices against all Jews, instead of having people oppose the actual author of the act.

I just spoke to a French left-winger Jew (her Jewishness is central to her identity). She never had any impact on Israel's course of action. I dislike the idea that she can be called a "dirty Jew" in the streets of Paris by some Palestinian sympathiser. But considering that most of the Arab media construes "the Jew" as the enemy, instead of "Israel", this is sadly not surprising.

By talking about "Islamic terrorism" (and about "Islamic murder" or "Islamic theft" in the Netherlands, if Germanos is to be believed), the prejudices against all Muslims are increasing in the heads of the westerners. Already here on 'Poly (where we tend to more educated than average), some people think it is accurate to generalize on all Muslims.

Supposedly, we westerners are enlightened, and we Europeans are traumatized by the holocaust, for us not to want such crap to start again. As a result, we need to be aware of who our enemy actually is (militant groups), and to not alienate all Muslims. It'll do us good.

[Velociryx]

True and a good point. As someone mentioned earlier (I forget who, and am too medicated to be arsed to check), the "jews" in question did not claim to be directed by their faith in the shelling, and as such, it would be incorrect to ascribe it the title of a "jewish" act of terrorism.

However, if a group sings the praises of allah before detonating themselves, then....why not Islamic Terrorism?

And if the Jewish Army rode over the bodies of children singing the praises of their god...sure. Go for it.

-=Vel=-

PS: I'm not sure I agree with the point you made later. Saying "Islamic Terrorism" (at least in my mind) does nothing to implicate all islamic folk as terrorists...it merely describes (succinctly) that a) an act of terror was committed, and b) it was committed by someone in the name of his religion...islam.

And....I don't see a problem with that.

[Pekka]

So you DO agree with this ban?

I knew it. Why? Because everything that makes sense is against your beliefs.

Oh dear lord jesus the nasareth savior.. you shall be killed by jew sniper.