[lit-ideas] Re: Terrorist Language
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:53:25 -0600
Brian:
>>I have my quibbles with the Atlas document but I'm curious, what word or
>>phrase do you prefer, Mike, for labeling Islamic terrorists?<<
I would label any and all terrorists "terrorists". Islam has nothing whatever
to do with terrorism. No more so than Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or
Buddhism or any other religion in the world. Groups or leaders within each of
those sects have at times committed heinous crimes against humanity, but it
wasn't Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism that sponsored the
crimes. Nor has Islam. The doctrines of Islam and it's history are every bit
as pacific and "love your neighbor" as those of Christianity and the violations
of those brotherhood doctrines by Christians are just as abominable and
numerous as those by Islamists. So prefacing "terrorists" with Islamic is not
just inaccurate, it's bigotry and hate baiting, it's xenophobia at its worse.
If you want to distinguish between terrorists then name the terrorist group: Al
Queda, ETA, KKK, IRA, CIA, whatever, but not Islamic, not Christian, not
Capitalist, not Leftist, not American. Terrorism is carried out by specific
individuals (for example: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols) who may or may not be
affiliated with specific groups, but to identify groups that contain billions
of people as 'terrorist' is totally meaningless and detrimental to our struggle
against terrorist groups. To favor Sharia, to believe that all who are not
Muslim are infidels, to hate the West -- none of these things are terrorism.
Blowing up innocent, noncombatant people -- that's terrorism. Islam has never
done that -- only some people have done that -- some on both sides.
Mike Geary
Other related posts:
