EU to ban Islamic Terrorism

[Crown]

I believe that my point has been proven in this very thread for me, by those who don't understand what we mean when we use the term of Islamic Terrorism, by people who funnily - or alarmingly - enough were arguing in the negative.

Irony. Wonderful.

The association between certain instances of terrorism and its alleged motivation is not going to disappear simply by banning the phrase. After all, many of these terrorists are the very ones who advertise their activities as "Islamic", and claim that they are the ones truly representing their religion as opposed to their liberal co-religionists.

True, partly, which is why calling it what it really is; 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam' (from the article) can't exactly fucking hurt now can it? In fact it can only be a good thing since it actively dispells, and disputes these terrorist's claims as being in line with their religion rather than re-inforcing that belief by calling them Islamic Terrorist.

You think?

[Lord Zentei]

True, partly, which is why calling it what it really is; 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam' (from the article) can't exactly fucking hurt now can it? In fact it can only be a good thing since it actively dispells, and disputes these terrorist's claims as being in line with their religion rather than re-inforcing that belief by calling them Islamic Terrorist.

You think?

Perhaps. Though I'm not quite so certain that they are altogether not closer to the literal interpretation of their holy books than the liberal Muslims are (mind you, I have a similarly low opinion of the negative potential of other faiths - or rather the negative potential of self identification in terms of faith).

And in any case, no one is objecting to referring to the sundry groups of Northern Ireland as Prodestants and Catholics; moreover their defenition of self in those terms as well as their definition of their advesaries, the "others" in those terms is not in dispute, is it? It is precisely the adherance to religion that defines the social groups that are at odds; to claim that religion does not motivate them is somewhat disingenious. What is wrong with calling a spade a spade? Or is it that you deem that Muslims are easier targets for general ire and mistrust in a majority Christian environment and that they should thus be given this consideration?

[CarsonPalmer]

Crown, the US police state comment was directed at Sidewinder, back on the first page. I should have separated that from the rest of my argument. Now, I don't seem to understand what Saddam Hussein's falsely alleged connection to 9/11 has to at all with the phrase "Islamic Terrorism". Could you elaborate a little, please?

[Flagg]

I believe that my point has been proven in this very thread for me, by those who don't understand what we mean when we use the term of Islamic Terrorism, by people who funnily - or alarmingly - enough were arguing in the negative.

Irony. Wonderful.

The association between certain instances of terrorism and its alleged motivation is not going to disappear simply by banning the phrase. After all, many of these terrorists are the very ones who advertise their activities as "Islamic", and claim that they are the ones truly representing their religion as opposed to their liberal co-religionists.

True, partly, which is why calling it what it really is; 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam' (from the article) can't exactly fucking hurt now can it? In fact it can only be a good thing since it actively dispells, and disputes these terrorist's claims as being in line with their religion rather than re-inforcing that belief by calling them Islamic Terrorist.

You think?

Of course it doesn't hurt at all, and may in fact help. The problem with alot of people is that they are under the assumption that all PC=Bad, Absurd, Pussification. That doesn't mean that they aren't right about some movements, for instance, to use a Carlin refference, changing the term "manhole" to "personhole", is downright stupid, while using the nongender specific term for fire fighters, police officers, and mail carriers is only proper.

[The Guid]

And in any case, no one is objecting to referring to the sundry groups of Northern Ireland as Prodestants and Catholics

I don't know where you are right now but when I refer to bombings in Northern Ireland I say, for instance, the IRA. I don't reinforce that they are Christians in any way whatsoever. That is how that group is always referred to in the media and in government. I fail to see the comparison between that instance and the phrase 'Islamic Terrorism'

[Lord Zentei]

And in any case, no one is objecting to referring to the sundry groups of Northern Ireland as Prodestants and Catholics

I don't know where you are right now but when I refer to bombings in Northern Ireland I say, for instance, the IRA. I don't reinforce that they are Christians in any way whatsoever.

You don't reinforce that they are Christians? Bully for you.

That is how that group is always referred to in the media and in government.

Bullshit. Unless you are specifically referring to UK media. And "that group" isn't the only one causing tension (though they are certainly the ones causing almost all the bombings, though). References to the antagonists as Prodestants and Catholics are certainly not uncommon in the North, which is accurate, because that is what they are.

[The Guid]

You don't reinforce that they are Christians? Bully for you.

So your comparison is meaningless? Glad we agree.

Bullshit. Unless you are specifically referring to UK media.

Funnilly enough....

And "that group" isn't the only one causing tension (though they are certainly the ones causing almost all the bombings, though). References to the antagonists as Prodestants and Catholics are certainly not uncommon in the North, which is accurate, because that is what they are.

And this addresses any of the issues in this thread how?

[Lord Zentei]

You don't reinforce that they are Christians? Bully for you.

So your comparison is meaningless? Glad we agree.

How the fuck do you get that the comparison is meaningless simply because you do not refer to the antagonists as Catholics and Prodestants? Ego trip, much?

Bullshit. Unless you are specifically referring to UK media.

Funnilly enough....

Ah. So "the" media is the UK media. Got it.

And "that group" isn't the only one causing tension (though they are certainly the ones causing almost all the bombings, though). References to the antagonists as Prodestants and Catholics are certainly not uncommon in the North, which is accurate, because that is what they are.

And this addresses any of the issues in this thread how?

Are you stupid? The ability to refer to antagonists by the social group of which they are a radical representation is precisely what the thread is about.

[The Guid]

How the fuck do you get that the comparison is meaningless simply because you do not refer to the antagonists as Catholics and Prodestants? Ego trip, much?

Because it does not represent a flaw in my position. If you, or anyone else for that matter, refer to the IRA the whole time as "Christians" or what have you then its equally stupid in my opinion as calling Alqaedi and what have you "Islamic Terrorism" . If you want to argue the general theory of the idea it has been done above, don't throw another example in my face as something to back you up when its just as stupid as the other one. Follow? Or do I need to make it even simpler?

Ah. So "the" media is the UK media. Got it.

In the context of Northern Ireland the UK media is the most relevent media source.

Are you stupid? The ability to refer to antagonists by the social group of which they are a radical representation is precisely what the thread is about.

Indeed it is. You however, in what was quoted, only told me a few random facts of "what is happening" & made no further points. It was not relevent.

[Lord Zentei]

How the fuck do you get that the comparison is meaningless simply because you do not refer to the antagonists as Catholics and Prodestants? Ego trip, much?

Because it does not represent a flaw in my position. If you, or anyone else for that matter, refer to the IRA the whole time as "Christians" or what have you then its equally stupid in my opinion as calling Alqaedi and what have you "Islamic Terrorism" . If you want to argue the general theory of the idea it has been done above, don't throw another example in my face as something to back you up when its just as stupid as the other one. Follow? Or do I need to make it even simpler?

They are referred to as Catholics and Prodestants, not "Christians" in general, since that distinction is an important aspect of their self-definition in the context of their struggle, you idiot. This is even moreso with Al-Quaeda who very overtly define themselves as being Islamic, and that they are fighting a holy war, etc. You claim that, for some reason, Al-Quaeda may not be defined such terms, even if that is how they define themselves. Kindly explain why.

Ah. So "the" media is the UK media. Got it.

In the context of Northern Ireland the UK media is the most relevent media source.

<snip>

Indeed it is. You however, in what was quoted, only told me a few random facts of "what is happening" & made no further points. It was not relevent.

Wow, I guess you really are stupid. Observe the above snippets. Now recall: your claim was that "That is how that group [the IRA] is always referred to in the media and in government." I made a counterpoint that this was not, in fact the case.

[The Guid]

They are referred to as Catholics and Prodestants, not "Christians" in general, since that distinction is an important aspect of their self-definition in the context of their struggle, you idiot. This is even moreso with Al-Quaeda who very overtly define themselves as being Islamic, and that they are fighting a holy war, etc. You claim that, for some reason, Al-Quaeda may not be defined such terms, even if that is how they define themselves. Kindly explain why.

Read the thread. Its because whilst everyone is saying "Islamic Terrorism" people are associating the two terms leading to greater xenaphobia and greater asstardary.

And I am aware of the distinction between Catholics and Protestants, but the IRA, to my knowledge have never been referred to as "Catholic Terrorists" because that would be stupid for the same above reason.

And indeed in both cases it is NOT purely a religous issue in the first place.

And if you are going to call me stupid, don't ask a question that has been answered already.

[Lord Zentei]

Read the thread. Its because whilst everyone is saying "Islamic Terrorism" people are associating the two terms leading to greater xenaphobia and greater asstardary.

And I am aware of the distinction between Catholics and Protestants, but the IRA, to my knowledge have never been referred to as "Catholic Terrorists" because that would be stupid for the same above reason.

And indeed in both cases it is NOT purely a religous issue in the first place.

And if you are going to call me stupid, don't ask a question that has been answered already.

I have responded to the answer to the question, as you can see at the top of this page. And though it is not a "purely" religious issue, it is not inaccurate to describe Al-Quaeda as being Islamic: very few things indeed, if any, are "purely" religious, but the stated objective of Al-Quaeda is to get the West out of Islamic countries and to institute Islamic theocracies in said countries, and they motivate their followers with religious propaganda. Al Quaeda are about as religiously oriented as any political organization can get.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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

What a PC-bullshit useless definition. I believe terrorism should be defined as the use of violence to terrorize civilians with the intent and goal of extracting political appeasement or concessions. This would include hijacking airliners, taking hostages, assassinating politicians, etc. Of course it would exclude 9/11 so it'll never be adopted despite being generally historically accurate and internally consistent.

Its my opinion that 9/11 does not qualify as terrorism. The targets were not attacked expressly because they were civilian - civilians were regarded as collateral damage - but rather for symbolic morale reasons and because they represented major hubs of economic and military operation for the enemy (us). They were not attacked with the goal of getting the U.S. to politically concede anything. There's no objective difference between the 9/11 attacks and our past strategic bombing campiagns aside from the fact that al Quaeda can't afford strategic bombers and an air force. There's no other real distinction. That doesn't mean it should be excused or tolerated, but simply taken in step as a surprise act of war.

[Darth Wong]

Several points here:

1) Those who argued against Crown's concerns about the association of Islam and terrorism due to the use of the term "Islamic Terrorism" are absolutely full of shit. Unless they're going to argue that all of the research on Pavlovian association is wrong, people will subconsciously form an association based on repetition of the term. Blathering on about how people are too smart for that is just a lot of hot air; people have to consciously fight against subconscious associations, and not everyone is bound to do that.

2) Those who argued that this is a colossal waste of time and money are also full of shit. I don't see how it can possibly cost a lot of money to add that item to public communication guidelines for EU governmental organizations. The guidelines are already being made, so the "cost" is limited to simply adding one item on the paper and discussing it.

3) Haughtiness about this issue from America (the same country that invented the idiotic terms "homicide bomber" and "freedom fries", the first of which is still in use at FOXNews) is rather ironic. The fact is that virtually all American government propaganda for the past 5 years has been carefully designed to take advantage of Pavlovian association and careful use of terminology; pointing fingers at the EU for mandating that this be done in a relatively non-prejudicial way is absurd when the US government does it in an unashamedly prejudicial way all the time.

4) Islam is not the primary cause of these terrorist incidents; the primary cause is too complex to be pinned down in such a simplistic way. However, it is still a cause, in the sense that it facilitates a certain kind of fanaticism and recklessness. But so does Christianity; after all, Christians are fond of bragging that there are no atheists in the foxholes, as if they're almost trying to convince people that Christianity facilitates militarism. Does that mean we should start referring to George Bush's invasion of Iraq as Christian militarism? The guy even said that God told him to do it, and his voter support base is most strongly in the so-called "Bible Belt". To be honest I wouldn't mind going tit-for-tat and referring to the Iraq Invasion as a Christian War, but you know perfectly well that Christians across the country would go apeshit if you did that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You'd be beaten to the punch anyway, Mike. Seems our old friend bin Laden has declared the "Zionist-crusader war" to be a thing to rise up against, with weapons in hand, of course. It's not just the "good guys" who can use psychological warfare to win the PR war.

[Darth Wong]

You'd be beaten to the punch anyway, Mike. Seems our old friend bin Laden has declared the "Zionist-crusader war" to be a thing to rise up against, with weapons in hand, of course. It's not just the "good guys" who can use psychological warfare to win the PR war.

Well of course he's calling it that. I was labouring under the assumption that regular people consider ourselves to be more even-handed than Osama Bin Laden. But it does say something that the right-wing considers Osama-style rhetoric to be the best way to communicate about these issues, doesn't it?

[SirNitram]

Well of course he's calling it that. I was labouring under the assumption that regular people consider ourselves to be more even-handed than Osama Bin Laden. But it does say something that the right-wing considers Osama-style rhetoric to be the best way to communicate about these issues, doesn't it?

At the end of the day the 'Clash of Civilizations' is just the same battle between irrational, regressive mentalities vs. liberal, progressive mentalities. The opposition is in far more places than just the Middle East.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The problem is, opposition also is seated in the highest echelons of the US gov't. It's one thing to target the savages who wear turbans in a far off land and blow themselves up in the name of some other god. It's quite another to attack the enemy in our midst, which right now would be Bush's administration. One of these sides may well win, but, not to be too cheesy, whoever does win, we lose. That is, unless someone wants to start a rational, liberal party that can take the throne after the fundie Christians and Muslims have wiped themselves out.

[Lord Zentei]

You'd be beaten to the punch anyway, Mike. Seems our old friend bin Laden has declared the "Zionist-crusader war" to be a thing to rise up against, with weapons in hand, of course. It's not just the "good guys" who can use psychological warfare to win the PR war.

As I recall, it was originally shrub himself that referred to his adventurism as a "Global Crusade Against Terror"TM. He only changed it when it was privately pointed out to him that this would be really fucking bad for PR.

[Simplicius]

What a PC-bullshit useless definition. I believe terrorism should be defined as the use of violence to terrorize civilians with the intent and goal of extracting political appeasement or concessions. This would include hijacking airliners, taking hostages, assassinating politicians, etc. Of course it would exclude 9/11 so it'll never be adopted despite being generally historically accurate and internally consistent.

The trouble with the EU definition is not that it is PC bullshit, but that it is overbroad - a protestor who trashes a Starbucks can satisfy that definition, as can a soldier.

The targets were not attacked expressly because they were civilian - civilians were regarded as collateral damage - but rather for symbolic morale reasons and because they represented major hubs of economic and military operation for the enemy (us).

Yes, but notice that some of the targets were explicitly civilian in nature - centers of business in a major urban area. A deliberate building collapse that kills and injures thousands - to say nothing of the psychological effects - is no less targeting civilians than a bomb that blows up five people in a sidewalk cafe or a gunman who shoots two. Different means to the same ends, to wit: making people feel vulnerable where they expect to feel safe.

You'll note that 'symbolic morale reasons' basically means 'attempting to make the people pressure their government to effect a change in policy'.
Statistically, terrorists target democratic countries, because the effect of popular opinion on the government is seen as a weakness.

They were not attacked with the goal of getting the U.S. to politically concede anything.

...Except for the whole "US out of the Middle East!" thing. Territorial liberation is the predominant goal of suicide terrorism, and is most certainly a political one.

There's no objective difference between the 9/11 attacks and our past strategic bombing campiagns aside from the fact that al Quaeda can't afford strategic bombers and an air force.

There's no objective difference between any terrorist campaign and any proper military campaign, other than the fact that terrorists are unable or unwilling to fight with a standing army. Terrorism and war have the same goal: to make someone else do what you want using violent force or the threat thereof.