Kerry: ‘Islamic Extremism’ Wrong Phrase Because We Can’t ‘Blame Muslims Collectively’

Posted by | January 23, 2015 14:30 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories War & Peace


The Secretary of State spoke at the World Economic Forum.

“Like” us on Facebook

[su_left_ad]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

108 responses to Kerry: ‘Islamic Extremism’ Wrong Phrase Because We Can’t ‘Blame Muslims Collectively’

  1. mea_mark January 23rd, 2015 at 14:32

    Right-wing fundamental religious extremism.

  2. mea_mark January 23rd, 2015 at 15:32

    Right-wing fundamental religious extremism.

  3. ExPFCWintergreen January 23rd, 2015 at 15:20

    This tendentious dancing around modifiers is a poor substitute for an actual policy. What next? We’d better stop using the word “apartheid” when discussing decades of white-minority rule in South Africa because we can’t blame all Afrikaaners for the policy of their governments? C’mon. If we’re talking about extremists who claim to take action in the defense and/or the name of Islam, I see no problem using the adjective, “Islamic” — no more than I was troubled by discussions of “Irish Republican” terrorism during The Troubles or “German radical” terrorism during the Baader-Meinhoff crime spree. I’m no more tolerant of salving Muslim butt-hurt than I am American Evangelical Christian Right-Wing Nutjob butt-hurt.

    • greenfloyd January 23rd, 2015 at 23:09

      So you reject SoS Kerry’s rather profound conclusion that to blame a whole group for the evil deeds of a few, “Will only fan the flames…” Do you really want more terrorism when all you have to do is drop that “butt-hurt” adjective? Is that really too much to ask?

      • trees January 24th, 2015 at 06:46

        Fan the flames how, exactly?? If you’re afraid that identifying a subset of a larger group will somehow provoke the entire group, then you must conclude that the entire group is actually in conformity with that subset group.

        Right?

        • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 07:01

          It is why we never called the Klan, “Christian Terrorists”.

          • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 12:12

            But the Klan doesn’t operate in the name of Christ — it operates in the name of White Nationhood. They appropriate Christian symbology, but they’re not advancing a *Christian* extremist agenda. Palestinian terrorism committed by the PLO was “Palestinian” terrorism — it was nationalist terrorism in the same way that Irish Republican terrorism was.

            • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 14:32

              That’s what moderate Muslims say about THEIR extremists.

              • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 15:09

                In 3 years of research on the Klan as an organization, including interviews with Klansmen, I never found an example of one who believed the Klan was about defending Christianity. The subordination of non-Christians is an adjunct to a doctrine of racial superiority in the “main” Klan, and it was in the pursuit of racial superiority that Christian symbology was deployed — in much the same way it was deployed by the National Socialists in the 1930s. For Christian Identity adherents, on the other hand, many of whom are in the Klan — but many of whom feel the Klan is insufficiently doctrinaire on theological questions — elevation of the Christian faith is the primary goal of white nationalism, the opposite of the Klan. If you’re not familiar with Christian Identity, the ADL has a good primer http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/christian_identity.html

                On the other hand, in 5 years of working closely with Arabs, including very conservative (and highly politicized) Islamists — and including former members of the PLO who had since become radicalized — I never found an example of one who didn’t subordinate the political to the theological, exactly the reverse of the Klan. The Klan and the Christian Identity movement overlap to be sure, and the Christian Identity movement has a lot of Klansmen as members, but if you’re looking for a Christian extremist analog to Islamic extremism under white hoods, organizationally you’re looking in the wrong place.

                • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 17:48

                  I disagree.

                  My point is that they were terrorists who identified as Christians and believed that they had the backing of the religion.

                  But let me repeat;

                  My husband is from India (former Hindu, now agnostic).

                  Most of his family is there.

                  His dad worked for a Muslim company for 30 years (a cosmetic company called Afghan Snow)

                  They live in a neighborhood made up of Hindus, Christians and Muslims, who ALL celebrate Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan.

                  Many of them do not go to the mosque and some of them drink.

                  Most Bollywood actors and actress’ are Muslims.

                  Nobody cares.

                  One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section of the Pakistani English speaking newspaper, The Dawn. It is very interesting.

                  I grew up working in a large teaching hospital talking to foreign residents, many of whom were Muslim.

                  It was from them I heard about “Letters to Uncle Sam” written by Saadat Hasan Manto in the 1950’s warning us not to support radical Islam in Pakistan as a hedge against the USSR and India.

                  It was from them I first came to know of Eisenhower’s support for Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foil to Nasser.

                  It was from the Lebanese Christians in my husband’s practice today, that I learned that Lebanese Christians like Hezbollah. (I looked that up for myself and found it confirmed; In Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese Christians find respect, stability;
                  In a Christian home in a Shiite suburb of Beirut, images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah share mantel and wall space with the Virgin Mary.

                  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability

                  There is a lot more to the story than what WE know.

                  • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 18:27

                    Inasmuch as The Times of India referred to “Islamic terrorists” as far back as the 1960s, I repeat that it is preposterous to think that anyone is motivated to join terrorists simoly because someone referred to the cause for which the terrorists purport to fight. And inasmuch as not all terrorists share the same goals, the same motivations, and the the same desired outcomes, to describe them by some generic name — The Bad Guys — is a detriment to sound and successful policymaking. But as long as you’re comfortable with taking the modifier “Christian” out of the phrase “Christian Right” — because after all not all Christians are right-wingers — then knock yourself out. As for me, “Islamic terrorists” are, and will remain, Islamic or Muslim terrorists.

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 18:41

                      I think it simply elevates them, but I couldn’t care less who calls it what.

                      To me, terrorists are terrorists; Klan, al Qaeda, Irgun or Behring Breivik.

                    • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 22:58

                      I agree, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist… or as the bible puts it, “You shall know them by their fruits (deeds).”

                      Nonetheless, in some communities with populations of disaffected youth susceptible to extremist propaganda, peer pressure and popular media (from Tiny Doo to Jihad John) there is a struggle for hearts and minds. The battlefield playgrounds and classrooms, the weapons honesty and respect for the rights of all peaceful people. One way of doing that is to not blame a whole group of people for the evil deeds of a few. Take away “Islam” or “Gangster-culture,” and we reveal the moral bankruptcy of those who use violence as a means to their selfish ends.

                    • trees January 24th, 2015 at 22:55

                      I think the reluctance to address it by name, the reluctance to identify it, shows weakness. When a group claims responsibility in the name of religion, then to ignore it prompts the question, “why, what is your aversion to acknowledging this movement?” Certainly no one seriously considers all Muslims to be violent, but the quiet of the greater Muslim community when acts are committed causes one to pause and take notice…..

                      I remember great cheering masses in the streets of Islamic countries in support of the 9/11 terror strike.

                      Were all of those demonstrators violent terrorists? No. Did they support the actions of Al Qaeda? Yes.

                    • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 23:11

                      “I remember great cheering masses in the streets of Islamic countries in support of the 9/11 terror strike.”

                      I don’t recall that at all, please elaborate.

                      I do recall a huge global outpouring of grief and support for America.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 00:38

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

                    • greenfloyd January 25th, 2015 at 01:39

                      In both examples above, “great cheering masses,” not so much… especially considering how the rest of the world reacted with such great kindness and sorrow.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 00:49

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vsq5ZRir-0k

                    • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 01:40

                      Look at the date of the video. December 2012. It was at the height of Dubya’s fascist militarist sabre-rattling against Iraq.

                      No wonder they were defiant. The criminal Dubya/Cheney regime were the worst terrorists of all. They killed more people than Al Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, and Hezbollah put together.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 01:25

                      http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/09/muslims-celebrated-the-sep-11-attacks.html

                • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 01:54

                  “I never found an example of one who believed the Klan was about defending Christianity.”

                  On the contrary, MOST Klansmen believe that the central core of their ideology is the defense of Christianity. They use Christian symbols almost exclusively, and pepper their hate speech with Biblical references.

                  If you’re going to refer to groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, etc. as “Islamic terrorists” (and I believe this is accurate), then the KKK must also be called a Christian terrorist organization, and the Tamil Tigers are Buddhist extremists.

                  • ExPFCWintergreen January 25th, 2015 at 11:51

                    They do indeed use Biblical references. To justify white supremacy. Religion is subordinate to race. ISIS is not fighting for … brownish supremacy. It’s fighting for Sunni Muslim supremacy irrespective of racial demographic of Muslim — and non-Muslim — identifier.

        • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 07:51

          It’s not about being “afraid” of anything, it’s about respect and accuracy. It’s about denying psychopathic killers any claim to legitimacy whatsoever.

          • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 12:09

            I’m just curious green, do you know what a core tenant is in islam belief? Their main core tenant, the one that is actually also a goal for all to reach for?

            • trees January 24th, 2015 at 15:57

              Conversion

              • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 16:52

                Very very close trees, since that is one way to achieve their core tenant/goal.

                You see, ALL muslims believe that paradise is:
                when allah & the prophets walk among men here on earth.
                (and that makes sense, who believes in a god wouldn’t want that god here on earth and no suffering, no pain, peaceful, etc)

                It is very clear in the koran & hadith that in order for that event to happen, ALL of earth’s people must be of the faith, muslim.

                And all muslims must work towards that goal. In order to be muslim, you must believe this. Just the same as to be called a christian, one must believe that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead.

                In the muslim faith, there are 2 ways to achieve this goal, both accepted as equal in choice:
                1. witness
                2. conquer to convert(btw, it is the last remaining ‘mainstream’ religion that believes this)

                The muslim world sees jews and christians(and other large-populated religions) as a very serious road block to achieving this goal; it is why so many in the muslim world call isreal the ‘little satan’ and america(leader of the free world-western culture- and seen as a ‘christian’ nation) the great satan.
                The muslims truly believe that judaism and christianity are satanic in the sense that that is what is keeping paradise from happening.
                This is mainstream muslim faith.

                The good news in my eyes is that there is a reform movement(mostly in the us though) to rid the faith of the ‘conquer to convert’ option, that it should be done peacefully, that until it does witness and be peaceful in striving for the goal is the only accepted road to travel.

                • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 17:25

                  My husband is from India (former Hindu, now agnostic).

                  Most of his family is there.

                  His dad worked for a Muslim company for 30 years (a cosmetic company called Afghan Snow)

                  They live in a neighborhood made up of Hindus, Christians and Muslims, who ALL celebrate Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan.

                  Many of them do not go to the mosque and some of them drink.

                  Most Bollywood actors and actress’ are Muslims.

                  Nobody cares.

                  One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section of the Pakistani English speaking newspaper, The Dawn. It is very interesting.

                  Also, interesting, Muslim Bollywood actress mops the floor with Pakistani mullah;

                  http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/pakistani-actress-ve.html

                  • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 17:31

                    “One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section”
                    Now there’s a hobby for you… :)

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 17:38

                      it is VERY interesting reading.

                    • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 17:47

                      I wouldn’t doubt it, I may have to follow the link in a bit.
                      ty

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 18:02

                      One of the favorites;

                      6 surprises that greet a Pakistani in India

                      http://www.dawn.com/news/1136597

                      (especially the part about women drivers on “scootys”.

                • trees January 25th, 2015 at 00:57

                  If the moment when paradise on earth becomes reality, through complete worldwide acceptance of Islam, then I would have to say that conversion is the primary goal of Islam. In other words, I think we’re saying the same thing.

            • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 21:59

              I am no expert on any religion, although I’ve recently become familiar with the 5 Pillars of Islam. I think most Muslims would consider those the core to their belief system.

              • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 22:29

                I disagree a bit, if you note, Kerry said “blame muslims collectively” as his reason for not using the wording “islamic terrorists” and the reason for that is not respect(at least he doesn’t mention it as such), but not to alienate them when we may need their help in defeating the terrorists(adding up several recent speeches).
                And by using islamic terrorist as a phrase it adds to accuracy of the event because indeed not only muslims use/commit acts of terror, such as political terrorists(not everyone in politics is a terrorist though) or eco-terrorists(and not everyone involved in the green movement is a terrorist).

                The 5 pillars are but a section of their core beliefs.

                • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 23:43

                  Either way Kerry’s motives make sense, be it out of respect or keeping people at the table. It cost him nothing to drop the “butt-hurt” Islamic label. But I bet it’s a bit irritating to violent extremists who get no such respect. They know if you remove the label from people’s minds, then they become exactly what they are, a ruthless gang of thugs hiding behind false banners and innocent civilians.

            • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 01:31

              Somebody who is so ignorant as to use the word “tenant’ instead of “tenet” cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say.

              Take your religious bigotry elsewhere, freak.

              • Spirit of America January 25th, 2015 at 02:00

                I’ll be sure to look into my speech-to-text program, which is what I use most of the time.

                What religious bigotry?
                (btw, your ‘catholicism ‘ is showing, or is it the hypocrisy?)

          • trees January 24th, 2015 at 15:54

            Then identify them, the terrorists, as Islamic and allow the Muslims themselves to condemn the acts of terrorism and make the case that those terrorists are not practicing true Islam. By identifying it you compel Muslims to take a side and make a commitment, one way or the other.

            • greenfloyd January 24th, 2015 at 21:56

              I think most Muslims know terrorists are not practicing what they consider Islam, and do condemn the extremists in their midst. In places like Syria and Iraq, there are now unprecedented levels of cooperation (between Muslims, Christians, East and West) on military efforts to defeat these vicious pretenders.

      • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 12:10

        Kerry is wrong. The notion that there will be “more terrorism” if we use a modifier that Islamic terrorists themselves use is preposterous, not least because the first instances of Islamic terrorism pre-date the term. So clearly an English-language modifier isn’t what’s motivating individuals to join terrorist organizations. Muslims know that these terrorists are committing acts of terror in the name of Islam — the terrorists themselves make no bones about it. It’s in their propaganda, which is on wide display in many places in the region.

        Go to the book market on Monot Street in Beirut, the books market on Matanabbi Street in Baghdad, the small seller’s stalls in the Shuwaikh industrial district in Kuwait City — it’s all there. Furthermore, the notion that “ordinary” Muslims will suddenly think the U.S. is *not* Islamophobic and is even-handed in its treatment of the Muslim community is similarly preposterous — 235 years of U.S.-Muslim history tells them otherwise (see, for example, the excellent book by the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. [who, despite your feelings about U.S.-Israeli relations, is in fact a quite good historian], “Power, Faith, and Fantasy”).

        Ye gods, Captain John Smith, as important a part of the North American national-cultural narrative as you can find, came to fame by killing Muslims — his coat of arms had three “Turks’ heads” on it, and that coat of arms was part of the official coats-of-arms of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

        So yes — I think pandering to butt-hurt is too much to ask. Why? Because *somebody* is *always* butt-hurt:

        “About 75 members of the Italian-American Civil Rights League picketed for a fourth day yesterday outside The Staten Island Advance to protest the use of the terms ‘Mafia’ and ‘Cosa Nostra’ in newspaper articles on organized crime.” (New York Times, 28 February 1971)

        “The italian-American Civil Rights League has insisted that the words ‘Mafia’ and ‘Cosa Nostra’ be expunged from the script of ‘The Godfather.'” (Nicholas Gagi, “A Few Family Murders, But That’s Show Biz,” New York Times, 19 March 1972)

        So do you really think that Italian-Americans *finally* got the respect they craved after people stopped suggesting that The Mafia is, you know, “Italian?”

        • trees January 24th, 2015 at 14:31

          Excellent

        • greenfloyd January 25th, 2015 at 00:26

          Implicit in your wandering reply is an agreement their does in fact exist a struggle for hearts and minds that’s vital to fighting terrorism at every level. You note, “It’s in their (so-called Islamic terrorists) propaganda.” I believe that’s Kerry’s point, to deny that fundamental recognition of who they say they are and what they say they represent. Let’s not dignify barbarians, no matter how much they insist we do.

          • ExPFCWintergreen January 25th, 2015 at 11:49

            This is pretty simple to understand: NO Muslim’s heart and/or mind is going to be won or lost over use of the adjective, “Islamic,” when appended to “extremist” and/or “terrorist.” They’re not idiots. They’re not going to say, “Oh, golly, the Americans stopped using the phrase, ‘Islamic terrorism’ — they surely must respect us and our traditions now!” But again, as long as you agree that people like Jindal and Huckabee are categorically NOT to be described as being associated with the “Christian Right,” you’re free to describe violence-using-individuals-who-oppose-certain-aspects-of-certain-policies-in-certain-parts-of-the-world-at-certain-times-on-the-basis-of-certain-theological-precepts-which-may-or-may-not-reflect-the-mainstream-traditions-of-that-faith-but-which-are-nevertheless-in-some-certain-way-a-source-of-debate-within-the-ecumenical-councils-of-that-faith-and-among-adherents-of-it any way you please.

            • greenfloyd January 25th, 2015 at 22:06

              It’s clear you are convinced of your position. It seems the only way we could come to a more definitive, objective conclusion would be to ask Muslims what they think.

              Now, suppose we did conduct an extensive poll and it was found most Muslims would prefer not to have their religion associated with terrorists. Would you then perhaps reconsider?

              …as long as you agree that people like Jindal and Huckabee

              I beg your pardon!? I have not made any argument these guys should or should not be identified in any particular manner. With or without extensive hyphenation, – – – – :)

              Over the course of this well-considered thread it has been suggested we should accept terrorists’ self-identification as-is, without question. Like Kerry, I also think it’s a tactical mistake and frankly reeks of accommodation where none is warranted or deserved.

      • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 12:39

        “Do you really want more terrorism when all you have to do is drop that “butt-hurt” adjective?”

        Do you honestly believe that if in all print, in all speech, in all media that dropping the adjective will stop the islamic-terroristic activity? That’s all that needs to be done?

        They do not do it because of what we call them, they do it because of what their faith and interpretation of it leads them to do.

  4. ExPFCWintergreen January 23rd, 2015 at 16:20

    This tendentious dancing around modifiers is a poor substitute for an actual policy. What next? We’d better stop using the word “apartheid” when discussing decades of white-minority rule in South Africa because we can’t blame all Afrikaaners for the policy of their governments? C’mon. If we’re talking about extremists who claim to take action in the defense and/or the name of Islam, I see no problem using the adjective, “Islamic” — no more than I was troubled by discussions of “Irish Republican” terrorism during The Troubles or “German radical” terrorism during the Baader-Meinhoff crime spree. I’m no more tolerant of salving Muslim butt-hurt than I am American Evangelical Christian Right-Wing Nutjob butt-hurt.

    • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 24th, 2015 at 00:09

      So you reject SoS Kerry’s rather profound conclusion that to blame a whole group for the evil deeds of a few, “Will only fan the flames…” Do you really want more terrorism when all you have to do is drop that “butt-hurt” adjective? Is that really too much to ask?

      • trees January 24th, 2015 at 07:46

        Fan the flames how, exactly?? If you’re afraid that identifying a subset of a larger group will somehow provoke the entire group, then you must conclude that the entire group is actually in conformity with that subset group.

        Right?

        • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 08:01

          It is why we never called the Klan, “Christian Terrorists”.

          • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 13:12

            But the Klan doesn’t operate in the name of Christ — it operates in the name of White Nationhood. They appropriate Christian symbology, but they’re not advancing a *Christian* extremist agenda. Palestinian terrorism committed by the PLO was “Palestinian” terrorism — it was nationalist terrorism in the same way that Irish Republican terrorism was.

            • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 15:32

              That’s what moderate Muslims say about THEIR extremists.

              • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 16:09

                In 3 years of research on the Klan as an organization, including interviews with Klansmen, I never found an example of one who believed the Klan was about defending Christianity. The subordination of non-Christians is an adjunct to a doctrine of racial superiority in the “main” Klan, and it was in the pursuit of racial superiority that Christian symbology was deployed — in much the same way it was deployed by the National Socialists in the 1930s. For Christian Identity adherents, on the other hand, many of whom are in the Klan — but many of whom feel the Klan is insufficiently doctrinaire on theological questions — elevation of the Christian faith is the primary goal of white nationalism, the opposite of the Klan. If you’re not familiar with Christian Identity, the ADL has a good primer http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/christian_identity.html

                On the other hand, in 5 years of working closely with Arabs, including very conservative (and highly politicized) Islamists — and including former members of the PLO who had since become radicalized — I never found an example of one who didn’t subordinate the political to the theological, exactly the reverse of the Klan. The Klan and the Christian Identity movement overlap to be sure, and the Christian Identity movement has a lot of Klansmen as members, but if you’re looking for a Christian extremist analog to Islamic extremism under white hoods, organizationally you’re looking in the wrong place.

                • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 18:48

                  I disagree.

                  My point is that they were terrorists who identified as Christians and believed that they had the backing of the religion.

                  But let me repeat;

                  My husband is from India (former Hindu, now agnostic).

                  Most of his family is there.

                  His dad worked for a Muslim company for 30 years (a cosmetic company called Afghan Snow)

                  They live in a neighborhood made up of Hindus, Christians and Muslims, who ALL celebrate Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan.

                  Many of them do not go to the mosque and some of them drink.

                  Most Bollywood actors and actress’ are Muslims.

                  Nobody cares.

                  One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section of the Pakistani English speaking newspaper, The Dawn. It is very interesting.

                  I grew up working in a large teaching hospital talking to foreign residents, many of whom were Muslim.

                  It was from them I heard about “Letters to Uncle Sam” written by Saadat Hasan Manto in the 1950’s warning us not to support radical Islam in Pakistan as a hedge against the USSR and India.

                  It was from them I first came to know of Eisenhower’s support for Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brotherhood as a foil to Nasser.

                  It was from the Lebanese Christians in my husband’s practice today, that I learned that Lebanese Christians like Hezbollah. (I looked that up for myself and found it confirmed; In Hezbollah stronghold, Lebanese Christians find respect, stability;
                  In a Christian home in a Shiite suburb of Beirut, images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah share mantel and wall space with the Virgin Mary.

                  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1221/In-Hezbollah-stronghold-Lebanese-Christians-find-respect-stability

                  There is a lot more to the story than what WE know.

                  • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 19:27

                    Inasmuch as The Times of India referred to “Islamic terrorists” as far back as the 1960s, I repeat that it is preposterous to think that anyone is motivated to join terrorists simoly because someone referred to the cause for which the terrorists purport to fight. And inasmuch as not all terrorists share the same goals, the same motivations, and the the same desired outcomes, to describe them by some generic name — The Bad Guys — is a detriment to sound and successful policymaking. But as long as you’re comfortable with taking the modifier “Christian” out of the phrase “Christian Right” — because after all not all Christians are right-wingers — then knock yourself out. As for me, “Islamic terrorists” are, and will remain, Islamic or Muslim terrorists.

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 19:41

                      I think it simply elevates them, but I couldn’t care less who calls it what.

                      To me, terrorists are terrorists; Klan, al Qaeda, Irgun or Behring Breivik.

                    • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 24th, 2015 at 23:58

                      I agree, a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist… or as the bible puts it, “You shall know them by their fruits (deeds).”

                      Nonetheless, in some communities with populations of disaffected youth susceptible to extremist propaganda, peer pressure and popular media (from Tiny Doo to Jihad John) there is a struggle for hearts and minds. The battlefield playgrounds and classrooms, the weapons honesty and respect for the rights of all peaceful people. One way of doing that is to not blame a whole group of people for the evil deeds of a few. Take away “Islam” or “Gangster-culture,” and we reveal the moral bankruptcy of those who use violence as a means to their selfish ends.

                    • trees January 24th, 2015 at 23:55

                      I think the reluctance to address it by name, the reluctance to identify it, shows weakness. When a group claims responsibility in the name of religion, then to ignore it prompts the question, “why, what is your aversion to acknowledging this movement?” Certainly no one seriously considers all Muslims to be violent, but the quiet of the greater Muslim community when acts are committed causes one to pause and take notice…..

                      I remember great cheering masses in the streets of Islamic countries in support of the 9/11 terror strike.

                      Were all of those demonstrators violent terrorists? No. Did they support the actions of Al Qaeda? Yes.

                    • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 25th, 2015 at 00:11

                      “I remember great cheering masses in the streets of Islamic countries in support of the 9/11 terror strike.”

                      I don’t recall that at all, please elaborate.

                      I do recall a huge global outpouring of grief and support for America.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 01:38

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

                    • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 25th, 2015 at 02:39

                      In both examples above, “great cheering masses,” not so much… especially considering how the rest of the world reacted with such great kindness and sorrow.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 01:49

                      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vsq5ZRir-0k

                    • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 02:40

                      Look at the date of the video. December 2012. It was at the height of Dubya’s fascist militarist sabre-rattling against Iraq.

                      No wonder they were defiant. The criminal Dubya/Cheney regime were the worst terrorists of all. They killed more people than Al Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, and Hezbollah put together.

                    • trees January 25th, 2015 at 02:25

                      http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/09/muslims-celebrated-the-sep-11-attacks.html

                • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 02:54

                  “I never found an example of one who believed the Klan was about defending Christianity.”

                  On the contrary, MOST Klansmen believe that the central core of their ideology is the defense of Christianity. They use Christian symbols almost exclusively, and pepper their hate speech with Biblical references.

                  If you’re going to refer to groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, etc. as “Islamic terrorists” (and I believe this is accurate), then the KKK must also be called a Christian terrorist organization, and the Tamil Tigers are Buddhist extremists.

                  • ExPFCWintergreen January 25th, 2015 at 12:51

                    They do indeed use Biblical references. To justify white supremacy. Religion is subordinate to race. ISIS is not fighting for … brownish supremacy. It’s fighting for Sunni Muslim supremacy irrespective of racial demographic of Muslim — and non-Muslim — identifier. The Tamil Tigers are a nationalist terrorist organization. They want a separate state, and in that sense are more like the Irish Republican Army and ETA than they are like ISIS.

                    But I guess we’ll have to stop criticizing what Andrew Sullivan calls the “theo-cons” who want to ban abortion and same-sex marriage and the like. It’s hardly fair, right, referring to religion in the context of their political choices? Bobby Jindal? He’s not trying to force *religion* on anyone. Nahhhh. He’s just a “conservative” with certain views on certain things, and by golly we’d better show the religious beliefs of a Sarah Palin the same respect we’re going to show some fanatic who chops off a Japanese aid worker’s head. Consistency, right?

                    It’s inconceivable to me that people could actually believe that the key to counter-terrorism is to *not* brand terrorist organizations. “They’re extremists.” Well, WHAT KIND of extremists? Because in counter-terrorism, there’s no one-size-fits-all response. And why? Because different types of extremists have different goals: Basque extremists want a Basque nation-state. Once they have it, their terrorism stops. Zionist terrorists in Mandatory Palestine wanted the British out; until the British were out, Irgun terrorism wasn’t going to stop. The Mau-Mau wanted the British out of Kenya; once the British were gone, the Mau-Mau ceased to be a force.

                    Today’s the anniversary of Charles Manson’s conviction. Perhaps it’s time we stop referring to him as a “mass murderer.” I mean, how’s it going to look if we start calling people names like that? And what does “mass” mean, anyway? If he’s a “mass murderer,” then what about Idi Amin or some Nazi concentration camp commander? Were they “ultra-mass” murderers?

                    Honestly, what is the problem with labeling? There’s a reason we have adjectives in language — they help us make things more specific.

        • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 24th, 2015 at 08:51

          It’s not about being “afraid” of anything, it’s about respect and accuracy. It’s about denying psychopathic killers any claim to legitimacy whatsoever.

          • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 13:09

            I’m just curious green, do you know what a core tenant is in islam belief? Their main core tenant, the one that is actually also a goal for all to reach for?

            • trees January 24th, 2015 at 16:57

              Conversion

              • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 17:52

                Very very close trees, since that is one way to achieve their core tenant/goal.

                You see, ALL muslims believe that paradise is:
                when allah & the prophets walk among men here on earth.
                (and that makes sense, who believes in a god wouldn’t want that god here on earth and no suffering, no pain, peaceful, etc)

                It is very clear in the koran & hadith that in order for that event to happen, ALL of earth’s people must be of the faith, muslim.

                And all muslims must work towards that goal. In order to be muslim, you must believe this. Just the same as to be called a christian, one must believe that jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead.

                In the muslim faith, there are 2 ways to achieve this goal, both accepted as equal in choice:
                1. witness
                2. conquer to convert(btw, it is the last remaining ‘mainstream’ religion that believes this)

                The muslim world sees jews and christians(and other large-populated religions) as a very serious road block to achieving this goal; it is why so many in the muslim world call isreal the ‘little satan’ and america(leader of the free world-western culture- and seen as a ‘christian’ nation) the great satan.
                The muslims truly believe that judaism and christianity are satanic in the sense that that is what is keeping paradise from happening.
                This is mainstream muslim faith.

                The good news in my eyes is that there is a reform movement(mostly in the us though) to rid the faith of the ‘conquer to convert’ option, that it should be done peacefully, that until it does witness and be peaceful in striving for the goal is the only accepted road to travel.

                • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 18:25

                  My husband is from India (former Hindu, now agnostic).

                  Most of his family is there.

                  His dad worked for a Muslim company for 30 years (a cosmetic company called Afghan Snow)

                  They live in a neighborhood made up of Hindus, Christians and Muslims, who ALL celebrate Christmas, Diwali and Ramadan.

                  Many of them do not go to the mosque and some of them drink.

                  Most Bollywood actors and actress’ are Muslims.

                  Nobody cares.

                  One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section of the Pakistani English speaking newspaper, The Dawn. It is very interesting.

                  Also, interesting, Muslim Bollywood actress mops the floor with Pakistani mullah;

                  http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/pakistani-actress-ve.html

                  • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 18:31

                    “One popular hobby of the Indian Muslims is taunting the Pakistanis English speakers in the comment section”
                    Now there’s a hobby for you… :)

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 18:38

                      it is VERY interesting reading.

                    • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 18:47

                      I wouldn’t doubt it, I may have to follow the link in a bit.
                      ty

                    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 19:02

                      One of the favorites;

                      6 surprises that greet a Pakistani in India

                      http://www.dawn.com/news/1136597

                      (especially the part about women drivers on “scootys”.

                • trees January 25th, 2015 at 01:57

                  If the moment when paradise on earth becomes reality, through complete worldwide acceptance of Islam, then I would have to say that conversion is the primary goal of Islam. In other words, I think we’re saying the same thing.

            • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 24th, 2015 at 22:59

              I am no expert on any religion, although I’ve recently become familiar with the 5 Pillars of Islam. I think most Muslims would consider those the core to their belief system. However, I think you are getting off in the weeds here in pursuit of another agenda that has nothing to do with showing simple respect, as Kerry is suggesting.

              • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 23:29

                I disagree a bit, if you note, Kerry said “blame muslims collectively” as his reason for not using the wording “islamic terrorists” and the reason for that is not respect(at least he doesn’t mention it as such), but not to alienate them when we may need their help in defeating the terrorists(adding up several recent speeches).
                And by using islamic terrorist as a phrase it adds to accuracy of the event because indeed not only muslims use/commit acts of terror, such as political terrorists(not everyone in politics is a terrorist though) or eco-terrorists(and not everyone involved in the green movement is a terrorist).

                The 5 pillars are but a section of their core beliefs.

                • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 25th, 2015 at 00:43

                  Either way Kerry’s motives make sense, be it out of respect or keeping people at the table. It cost him nothing to drop the “butt-hurt” Islamic label. But I bet it’s a bit irritating to violent extremists who get no such respect. They know if you remove the label from people’s minds, then they become exactly what they are, a ruthless gang of thugs hiding behind false banners and innocent civilians.

            • jasperjava January 25th, 2015 at 02:31

              Somebody who is so ignorant as to use the word “tenant’ instead of “tenet” cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say.

              Take your religious bigotry elsewhere, freak.

              • Spirit of America January 25th, 2015 at 03:00

                I’ll be sure to look into my speech-to-text program, which is what I use most of the time.

                What religious bigotry?
                (btw, your ‘catholicism ‘ is showing, or is it the hypocrisy?)

          • trees January 24th, 2015 at 16:54

            Then identify them, the terrorists, as Islamic and allow the Muslims themselves to condemn the acts of terrorism and make the case that those terrorists are not practicing true Islam. By identifying it you compel Muslims to take a side and make a commitment, one way or the other.

            • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 24th, 2015 at 22:56

              I think most Muslims know terrorists are not practicing what they consider Islam, and do condemn the extremists in their midst. In places like Syria and Iraq, there are now unprecedented levels of cooperation (between Muslims, Christians, East and West) on military efforts to defeat these vicious pretenders.

      • ExPFCWintergreen January 24th, 2015 at 13:10

        Kerry is wrong. The notion that there will be “more terrorism” if we use a modifier that Islamic terrorists themselves use is preposterous, not least because the first instances of Islamic terrorism pre-date the term. So clearly an English-language modifier isn’t what’s motivating individuals to join terrorist organizations. Muslims know that these terrorists are committing acts of terror in the name of Islam — the terrorists themselves make no bones about it. It’s in their propaganda, which is on wide display in many places in the region.

        Go to the book market on Monot Street in Beirut, the book market on Matanabbi Street in Baghdad, the small seller’s stalls in the Shuwaikh industrial district in Kuwait City — it’s all there. Furthermore, the notion that “ordinary” Muslims will suddenly think the U.S. is *not* Islamophobic and is even-handed in its treatment of the Muslim community is similarly preposterous — 235 years of U.S.-Muslim history tells them otherwise (see, for example, the excellent book by Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. [who, despite one’s feelings about U.S.-Israeli relations, is in fact a quite good historian], “Power, Faith, and Fantasy”).

        Ye gods, Captain John Smith, as important a part of the North American national-cultural narrative as you can find, came to fame by killing Muslims — his coat of arms had three “Turks’ heads” on it, and that coat of arms was part of the official coats-of-arms of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

        So yes — I think pandering to butt-hurt is too much to ask. Why? Because *somebody* is *always* butt-hurt:

        “About 75 members of the Italian-American Civil Rights League picketed for a fourth day yesterday outside The Staten Island Advance to protest the use of the terms ‘Mafia’ and ‘Cosa Nostra’ in newspaper articles on organized crime.” (New York Times, 28 February 1971)

        “The italian-American Civil Rights League has insisted that the words ‘Mafia’ and ‘Cosa Nostra’ be expunged from the script of ‘The Godfather.'” (Nicholas Gagi, “A Few Family Murders, But That’s Show Biz,” New York Times, 19 March 1972)

        So do you really think that Italian-Americans *finally* got the respect they craved — and organized crime stopped — after people quit suggesting that the Mafia is, you know, “Italian?”

        • trees January 24th, 2015 at 15:31

          Excellent post

        • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 25th, 2015 at 01:26

          Implicit in your wandering reply is an agreement their does in fact exist a struggle for hearts and minds that’s vital to fighting terrorism at every level. You note, “It’s in their (so-called Islamic terrorists) propaganda.” I believe that’s Kerry’s point, to deny that fundamental recognition of who they say they are and what they say they represent. Let’s not dignify barbarians, no matter how much they insist we do.

          • ExPFCWintergreen January 25th, 2015 at 12:49

            This is pretty simple to understand: NO Muslim’s heart and/or mind is going to be won or lost over use of the adjective, “Islamic,” when appended to “extremist” and/or “terrorist.” They’re not idiots. They’re not going to say, “Oh, golly, the Americans stopped using the phrase, ‘Islamic terrorism’ — they surely must respect us and our traditions now!” But again, as long as you agree that people like Jindal and Huckabee are categorically NOT to be described as being associated with the “Christian Right,” you’re free to describe violence-using-individuals-who-oppose-certain-aspects-of-certain-policies-in-certain-parts-of-the-world-at-certain-times-on-the-basis-of-certain-theological-precepts-which-may-or-may-not-reflect-the-mainstream-traditions-of-that-faith-but-which-are-nevertheless-in-some-certain-way-a-source-of-debate-within-the-ecumenical-councils-of-that-faith-and-among-adherents-of-it any way you please.

            • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 25th, 2015 at 23:06

              It’s clear you are convinced of your position. It seems the only way we could come to a more definitive, objective conclusion would be to ask Muslims what they think.

              Now, suppose we did conduct an extensive poll and it was found most Muslims would prefer not to have their religion associated with terrorists. Would you then perhaps reconsider?

              …as long as you agree that people like Jindal and Huckabee

              I beg your pardon!? I have not made any argument these guys should or should not be identified in any particular manner. With or without extensive hyphenation, – – – – :)

              Over the course of this well-considered thread it has been suggested we should accept terrorists’ self-identification as-is, without question. Like Kerry, I also think it’s a tactical mistake and frankly reeks of accommodation where none is warranted or deserved.

      • Spirit of America January 24th, 2015 at 13:39

        “Do you really want more terrorism when all you have to do is drop that “butt-hurt” adjective?”

        Do you honestly believe that if in all print, in all speech, in all media that dropping the adjective will stop the islamic-terroristic activity? That’s all that needs to be done?

        They do not do it because of what we call them, they do it because of what their faith and interpretation of it leads them to do.

  5. Apocalypse January 23rd, 2015 at 20:23

    Most Muslims are not terrorist…
    All these terrorist groups claim to be motivated by Islam. Should we ignore that?

    Abu Sayyaf, Philippines
    Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Egypt
    Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Al-Shabaab, Somalia
    Al-Qaeda, worldwide
    Ansar al-Islam, Iraq
    Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria
    Boko Haram, Nigeria
    Caucasus Emirate (IK), Russia
    East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), China
    Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egypt
    Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front (IBDA-C), Turkey
    Hamas, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al-Alami, PakistanHezbollah, Lebanon
    Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Central Asia
    Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Iraq and Syria
    Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and Kashmir
    Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Iraq
    Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia
    Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pakistan and Kashmir
    Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan
    Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Philippines
    Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Morocco and Europe
    Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Tawhid and Jihad, Iraq

    • greenfloyd January 23rd, 2015 at 22:55

      “Should we ignore that?” It depends. If you are a victim or a true believer in a peaceful Islam, then no you must not ignore them. If you are a secular state committed to freedom and democratic rule of law, then any individual or group that uses violence as a means to their ends must be stopped and their means of support destroyed, primarly by winning hearts and minds by exposing these frauds and their extensive networks.

    • trees January 24th, 2015 at 06:55

      I think the history of Islam reveals that the Islamic fundamentalists are called fundamentalists for a pretty good reason, what they believe is foundational Islam, and that if you go back and examine the religion from its inception you’ll find that violence and bloodshed have been with it from the very beginning……

      The peace that one gets from Islam is obtained through converting to Islam, and not until then

      • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 07:00

        That’s not true, although they say the same thing about Christianity.

        Actually WE nurtured radical Islam for the past 70 years as a hedge against the USSR.

        Things like overthrowing
        democracy in Iran and installing a dictator to protect BP’s interests, leading
        directly to the theocracy we have there now?

        Like funding radical Islam in Pakistan against secular democracy in India?

        Like funding the Muslim Brotherhood against secular government in Egypt to protect the Suez Canal for the Brits?

        Like supporting the Wahhabis in Saudi,so they they can sell us oil with one hand, while funding the
        terrorism that seeks to kill us with the other?

        Like arming both Saddam
        and the Iranians, then whining about how they are both armed?

        Like creating al Qaeda and teaching them how to bring down a super power?

        Remember

        In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President
        George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a jihadi Frankenstein.”

      • Bunya January 25th, 2015 at 00:53

        I just love when Christians, who are ignorant of what’s written in the bible, lecture me on Islam. By the way, you’re dead wrong.

  6. Apocalypse January 23rd, 2015 at 21:23

    Most Muslims are not terrorist…true fact.
    All these terrorist groups below claim to be motivated by Islam, many with Islam in their name.
    Should we ignore that?

    Abu Sayyaf, Philippines
    Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, Egypt
    Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Al-Shabaab, Somalia
    Al-Qaeda, worldwide
    Ansar al-Islam, Iraq
    Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria
    Boko Haram, Nigeria
    Caucasus Emirate (IK), Russia
    East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), China
    Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egypt
    Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front (IBDA-C), Turkey
    Hamas, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al-Alami, PakistanHezbollah, Lebanon
    Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Central Asia
    Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Iraq and Syria
    Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and Kashmir
    Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Iraq
    Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia
    Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pakistan and Kashmir
    Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan
    Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Philippines
    Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Morocco and Europe
    Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza Strip and West Bank
    Tawhid and Jihad, Iraq

    • floyd[@]greenfloyd.org January 23rd, 2015 at 23:55

      “Should we ignore that?” It depends. If you are a victim or a true believer in a peaceful Islam, then no you must not ignore them. If you are a secular state committed to freedom and democratic rule of law, then any individual or group that uses violence as a means to their ends must be stopped and their means of support destroyed, primarly by winning hearts and minds by exposing these frauds and their extensive networks.

    • trees January 24th, 2015 at 07:55

      I think the history of Islam reveals that the Islamic fundamentalists are called fundamentalists for a pretty good reason, what they believe is foundational Islam, and that if you go back and examine the religion from its inception you’ll find that violence and bloodshed have been with it from the very beginning……

      The peace that one gets from Islam is obtained through converting to Islam, and not until then

      • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 08:00

        That’s not true, although they say the same thing about Christianity.

        Actually WE nurtured radical Islam for the past 70 years as a hedge against the USSR.

        Things like overthrowing
        democracy in Iran and installing a dictator to protect BP’s interests, leading
        directly to the theocracy we have there now?

        Like funding radical Islam in Pakistan against secular democracy in India?

        Like funding the Muslim Brotherhood against secular government in Egypt to protect the Suez Canal for the Brits?

        Like supporting the Wahhabis in Saudi,so they they can sell us oil with one hand, while funding the
        terrorism that seeks to kill us with the other?

        Like arming both Saddam
        and the Iranians, then whining about how they are both armed?

        Like creating al Qaeda and teaching them how to bring down a super power?

        Remember

        In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President
        George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a jihadi Frankenstein.”

      • Bunya January 25th, 2015 at 01:53

        I just love when Christians, who are ignorant of what’s written in the bible, lecture me on Islam. By the way, you’re dead wrong.

  7. Wayout January 24th, 2015 at 08:19

    Muslims themselves use the term “Islamic Extremism”. Kerry is the wrong man for the job, a lefty who can’t see the world for what it really is.

    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 08:38

      And some Christians themselves used the term “Christian Extremism”, but they don’t want to hear it from non-Christians.

      Meanwhile as usual, it is the righties who not only do not see the world as it is, but can not acknowledge that they had a huge part in creating the very problems that they now STILL don’t understand, and thus continue the same failed policies.

    • tracey marie January 24th, 2015 at 12:57

      better to be a lefty then an inbred teabagg angry at the world, you know you and yours

  8. Wayout January 24th, 2015 at 09:19

    Muslims themselves use the term “Islamic Extremism”. Kerry is the wrong man for the job, a lefty who can’t see the world for what it really is.

    • OldLefty January 24th, 2015 at 09:38

      And some Christians themselves used the term “Christian Extremism”, but they don’t want to hear it from non-Christians.

      Meanwhile as usual, it is the righties who not only do not see the world as it is, but can not acknowledge that they had a huge part in creating the very problems that they now STILL don’t understand, and thus continue the same failed policies.

    • tracey marie January 24th, 2015 at 13:57

      better to be a lefty then an inbred teabagg angry at the world, you know you and yours

  9. trees January 24th, 2015 at 16:13

    You know, if Kerry were to bring James Taylor over to Iraq and sing and hug ISIL we might get the change of heart…. or, maybe two heads in. A duffle bag

  10. trees January 24th, 2015 at 17:13

    You know, if Kerry were to bring James Taylor over to Iraq and sing to and hug ISIL we might get the change of heart…. or, maybe two heads in a duffle bag

Leave a Reply