It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why it’s not “Islamic Terrorism”.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:36 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So I just watched Obama deliver a speech in the aftermath of the horrible attacks in France and it’s interesting to note that yet again he has avoided the use of the term “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic extremism”. On the other hand however the French president has called the attacks a act of Islamic terrorism so who is right?

Because Americans have heard it all before.

One more terror news cast, one more call to arms. They must be saving US for after Hillary is selected. They still want syria regime changed, Iran too, that hasn't changed. Just gone quiet in the main stream for now.

Let France carry the false flag for now.

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: GodEmperor

Political correctness aside, it is Islamic terrorism.

Why the Islamic label then? Just say all of Islam, thats the implication anyway. Just like a whole religion isn't to blame, neither will Americans be to blame as they start to call them "Home Grown Terrorists".

The real terrorists use air craft carriers, attack aircraft, dones and tons of hi explosive bombs.

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

ISIS goes around committing takfir against other Muslims, usually before slaughtering them for being apostates. So it is slightly ironic that Obama and yourself would employ the same methodology.

But if you can name anything besides Islam that connects these terrorists and this type of terrorism, we're all ears.
edit on 15-7-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:48 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

" It would be like talking about “Catholic terrorists”, “Black terrorists”, “Gay terrorists” or “American terrorists” it creates a impression in the mind of individuals who identify as catholic, black, gay or in this case Islamic that it is they who are the problem. "

I feel like addressing a few things here only at the moment. I am not finished reading. When I read Catholic and American terrorists as above I didn't feel as the appropriate impression was negative. I identify as both and if a country stated such after an attack, I wouldn't feel as if It was inappropriate. I don't think any people should be bother by that. If any one of those identifiers decided to attack people because of that identifier than the individual should be labeled as such. Those who share the same identifier should understand that that person has extreme beliefs about the identifier and disregard it.

" The second reason that I do not believe that the use of the phase “Islamic terrorism” is far bigger however, essentially I believe that it is wrong to label most of these terrorists as acting under the direction of an Islamic ideology. Rather I take the view that the founders of the forerunner to ISIS, Al-Qa’ida created their own fresh ideology, their own interpretation of Islam that is as different as Judaism and Catholicism. Essentially they have created their own faith over decades that in the later part of the last century really came into its own as a new religious ideology that draws heavily on Muslim tradition yet is still distinctly different. At best what we are fighting is not Islam but rather a very small sect of Islam a cult of sorts, they are the Islamic equivalent of the Branch of Davidians on a bigger scale. "

I wouldn't assume that because the identifier was used, that it was under direction of those who identify as such. I would like to know why others do though. Maybe I am just thick. Also isn't the attack itself just proof that the attacker had it's own interpretation of the identifier?

Now I think that all these identifiers 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time shouldn't be scrutinized because of individual actions but that depends on the consistency and the severity of the extremist actions. And specifically with Islamic identifiers, there is a trend that is quickly become more consistent, If white catholic males started blowing things up everywhere, I am going to be looking at people who identify as I do, with scrutiny.

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoinThe second reason that I do not believe that the use of the phase “Islamic terrorism” is far bigger however, essentially I believe that it is wrong to label most of these terrorists as acting under the direction of an Islamic ideology.Curious to how you developed your opinion...Surely you know the atrocities committed by ISIS and Al Qaeda and the other muzlim Brotherhood sects ALL get their information and marching orders directly from the Koran...And those orders are not mis-translations from the Koran...

The terrorists are the true izlamists/muzlims...In fact, there are two types of muzlims...Those who commit the tortures and murder of the infidels AND the rest of the muzlim world which supports them...

The Koran teaches the muzlims to be friendly and peaceful until their numbers are such that they can subdue and kill those who are not muzlim...Izlamic terrorist is the correct term...

posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 06:07 AM
a reply to: Iscool

And what is a muzlim???

Gota love how you wade into this thread talking bollocks and cannot even spell Muslim let alone understand the topic at hand

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: MystikMushroom

How many Muslims do you know? There are a billion, so unless you personally know the majority; I don't think anecdotal evidence will cut it.

I know some Muslims as well. I guess you don't really get to know them too well.

53% for Sharia law, is a majority.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in