This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

User Info: atmasabr

atmasabr
3 years ago#11
why not call it "Islamic terrorism by men of middle eastern descent?" that's even more accurate.

No it's not. Now we have homegrown terrorism, which is by young, second generation, and even recently converted Muslims.
Do your own research!

User Info: GeneralFrings

GeneralFrings
3 years ago#12
kidpokerfan posted...
I think it matters because you generally can understand who's most at risk judging by the type of terrorist. For instance, if it's Muslim terrorists that means that Whites and Jews are most at risk, but not necessarily blacks and other minorities.


dmorrisssey posted...
If they were Christian terrorists or just plain white terrorists they might not want to kill us. The fact that they're Muslim terrorists who want all non-Muslims dead lets people know they are dangerous to us in a mostly non-Muslim country.


These reasons might suffice in a general discussion of terrorism, but the criticism often comes in situations where the context makes it perfectly clear that the terrorists are some sect of Islam. I don't understand why they feel the need to punctuate every reference to the terrorist acts with an unnecessary reminder that the terrorists claim to be of Islam.


atmasabr posted...
I do not know what you are talking about. I think you are conflating two criticisms:

1) President Obama not referring to Islamic terrorist attacks as terrorist attacks.
2) President Obama whitewashing the Islamic role of Muslim radicalism, most recently through statements that ISIS does not represent Islam.


I'm not talking about the first at all, though it is equally baffling that they get angry when he doesn't specifically call the sky blue.

Tell me something though: What if he is whitewashing the Islamic role of Muslim radicalism? I ask again, what does it add to the discussion that we add the terrorists groups' ideological roots to every reference of them?
How deep is too deep?

User Info: dmorrisssey

dmorrisssey
3 years ago#13
Also helps people lean towards our Israeli allies who are fighting against Muslim terrorists for the right to exist.
http://www.last.fm/user/dmorris91
JETS Yankees Yankees Yankees

User Info: Eastsideslinger

Eastsideslinger
3 years ago#14
dmorrisssey posted...
If they were Christian terrorists or just plain white terrorists they might not want to kill us. The fact that they're Muslim terrorists who want all non-Muslims dead lets people know they are dangerous to us in a mostly non-Muslim country.


What makes you think a groups goals have to be intertwined with their beliefs or what they claim to believe.

The far right is too caught up in the fact that groups like ISIS are the epitome of Islam but you forget that they are also an ambitious group taking advantage of a power vaccum to try and build their own country.

But don't let that stop the "herp derp dem Muslins is gunna afta r freedums!"
"But come on, Fox even has a show referred to as the no spin zone. You can't tell me that they are somehow super biased."- CM_Punk_sxe

User Info: atmasabr

atmasabr
3 years ago#15
Tell me something though: What if he is whitewashing the Islamic role of Muslim radicalism? I ask again, what does it add to the discussion that we add the terrorists groups' ideological roots to every reference of them?

My post already gives the political right's answer to your question. To be direct:

While the far-right gives voice to these concerns, they are both shared by the center-right, which believes. . . he is failing to confront our enemies, or even appreciate their nature.

...

So, too, is the symbolism of how President Obama describes Islamic terrorists and militants also important. . . . it sends a message that the right of this country does not believe in.


You might say that the right believes President Obama is failing to send a symbolic message to our enemies in the presence of our allies that we're onto you and we are going to confront you. On reflection, I think your question about "adding to the discussion" misses the point. This controversy, in the political right's point of view is not about how to talk about how to talk about Islamic terrorism. It is how to act in response to it. The political right believes that acting with strength and resolve are necessary. That means calling things as they are in order to hold people accountable. This is where you get all those unfavorable comparisons to Neville Chamberlain.
Do your own research!

User Info: R_Nelly

R_Nelly
3 years ago#16
Not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorist are Muslim. It's a pretty apt saying. While it's not 100% correct, the ratio of non-Muslim terrorist to Muslim terrorist is probably a hundred to one.

User Info: YouAreCrumbs

YouAreCrumbs
3 years ago#17
R_Nelly posted...
It's a pretty apt saying. While it's not 100% correct,


i mean, it's not right or anything. but i like it.
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011

User Info: kidpokerfan

kidpokerfan
3 years ago#18
R_Nelly posted...
Not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorist are Muslim.


Most might be, but definitely not all.

User Info: R_Nelly

R_Nelly
3 years ago#19
YouAreCrumbs posted...
R_Nelly posted...
It's a pretty apt saying. While it's not 100% correct,


i mean, it's not right or anything. but i like it.


It's pretty safe to say 99% of terrorist are Muslims. Show me the last time white people engaged in a terrorist attack against a civilian instillation? What's it been 3 years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's such a small number that it isn't worth mentioning. What do you have? Maybe 50 incidents in the last 50 years? Compare that to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of instances of Muslim terrorism and the evidence is clear.

User Info: theSMITHS

theSMITHS
3 years ago#20
R_Nelly posted...
YouAreCrumbs posted...
R_Nelly posted...
It's a pretty apt saying. While it's not 100% correct,


i mean, it's not right or anything. but i like it.


It's pretty safe to say 99% of terrorist are Muslims. Show me the last time white people engaged in a terrorist attack against a civilian instillation? What's it been 3 years? I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's such a small number that it isn't worth mentioning. What do you have? Maybe 50 incidents in the last 50 years? Compare that to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of instances of Muslim terrorism and the evidence is clear.


This is one reason why Fox News should be pulled off the air.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Serious question for potentially unserious users, regarding terrorism.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived