Pesident Clinton

[planters]

I mean I guess it would be okay to use the world muslims to describe what was happening during the times of the early caliphates, but today you really should say islamists.

I guess you could be right, but the problem here is where do you draw the line dividing these two levels of devotion/zealotry? There is a progression from an individual with some historical ties to Islam who does not even practice the faith to those that do practice the faith and agree with many of the tenets and then to those that are devote to those that agree to support the use of violence to finally those that are putting on a "vest".

On the one hand, I do not believe all Muslims support the atrocities committed by the terrorists. I have stated this above. On the other hand, the Koran and a substantial fraction of Muslims do.

What exactly is the definition of an Islamist? When you look it up it seems that it is the political promotion of Islam as it is presented in the Koran. The Koran actually calls for its own political promotion and so this is a self consistent framework.

I think until there is a clear call and effort by moderate Muslims to actually stop this aggressive activity by what would commonly be thought of as the Islamists, then making this distinction serves little purpose.

[ghosttrain]

If you use the term muslim when talking about these atrocities it is assumed you are referring to all muslims. When you say islamist or islamic fundamentalist you make it clear from the get-go that you don't mean all musims. It's simple.

[planters]

Fair enough, but I don't think it is that simple. What do you call the say 20% of all Muslims that support a particular terrorist act or believe that violence to promote Islam is acceptable?

If the global population of Muslims is 1.6 billion then even 10% of this number is 160,000,000 people. Would you agree that there are this many Islamists worldwide?

I think that the term Islamist is being promoted to be a synonym for Islamic terrorist and I feel that this is completely wrong and misleading. If some of the Muslims in Molenbeek were providing for and helping to protect the leader of the French terrorist cell then they were definitely Islamists. Those that look the other way when radical Imams promote violence in their congregations...these are Islamists.

We can try to coin terms to isolate these zealots from their fellow Muslims, but it is these other Muslims that need to do this and are in the position to do so.

[ghosttrain]

What do you call the say 20% of all Muslims that support a particular terrorist act or believe that violence to promote Islam is acceptable?

They are islamic fundamentalists (islamists). The terms have already been coined.
If they themselves carry out terrorist acts, they would be both fundamentalists and also "islamic terrorists".
The thing is I'm sure most of the people in the 5-30% in the poll have no clue of the Quran and just have been brought up to hate the west and that's where their choice comes. But if you support a cause without knowing really what it's about you're still supporting it and get labelled. For example if I say I'm a feminist and donate and otherwise help feminism then I'm a feminist, I don't need a clear idea of everything that feminism is about to be labelled a feminist. Same with christians, how many of the millions of christians have read the bible or even know the 10 commandments (the basics of their belief)? They are still considered christian.

[planters]

I like your approach to the topic in that it is philosophically consistent and logical.

The problem with sensitive topics is that there is a tendency to circumnavigate the most painful aspects to avoid upsetting the reader. Frostypaw's reaction is an example of this risk. The issue that we face is that there is a concerted effort to redefine the terms of the argument even in the midst of that argument to sidestep a criticism or to avoid admitting a fallacy.

Consider the renaming of socialism as progressive-ism, the redefining of liberal which was once much like libertarian-ism to represent big government loving democrats. Global warming became climate change and is now being referred to increasingly as extreme weather. Domestic terror is described as workplace violence.

I believe the motivation for using the term Islamists is to try to convince the listener that the problem is a rare set of crazy people using the excuse of Islam to commit viscous acts; that this number is small, represents a tiny risk and avoids coming to grips with the real fact that probably over 100 million people around the world agree with these people. That is terrifying and the world is not ready to consider the ramifications of that possibility. But, that doesn't make it go away.

[catalanjo]

....... Global warming became climate change and is now being referred to increasingly as extreme weather. ......

Global warming = Very, very, difficult to measure ...impossible to demonstrate!
climate change = safe bet this one (easy to demonstrate).....you mean the climate actually changes ...I never noticed !
extreme weather = "for your own peace of mind ....... please remain terrified !"
Cheers

[ghosttrain]

I don't know, it's possible that the word islamist has been misused so much that most people think of something else when they hear it than its definition. But I still don't think if that is the case that using muslim is a good idea. Maybe a new word until that gets hijacked too but definitely not muslim.

[TechJunkie]

Hey Hey!!!

Just cruz'n through and saw all the wienies being waved around, so I figured I'd wave mine too.

Gentlemen, there is no president anymore. The president is controlled by lobbyists, and self interest groups to numerous to list. The housing bubble scam clearly shows the level these people play at. This goes back to the Reagan era, probably further but it was before my time.The president is just a face, and has very limited power to make his mark in the US history book. The puppet show started long ago, except we call it reality TV now.

Face it folks, no matter how much you love them, or how much you hate the candidates, you're looking at the wrong people. It the people hiding behind these candidates that control what you see, hear, and feel. And they are neither Rep or Dem. They are the 1% independents who's only belief system is the bottom line, and have an insatiable addiction trying to play God with the worlds economy, and people. I've said this before, and never thought I'd say it again, but these are the most embarrassing times in US history. The fact most people in this country eat this BS up is why we are hated. We've lived in a dream world for 250 years, they've live in filth, blood, and death for thousands. And dont get me wrong, I'm in no way a sympathizer of people who use violence to make their point. But I also feel no empathy for the children who stick their hands in a hornet's nest thinking they are smart enough to pull a jar of non-existent honey out of it without getting stung.

**Zips Up**

I think I just heard a Homeland Security drone fly over my house.

BTW Happy Resurrection, colored egged, chocolate bunny, bread day!!! Good to see you all still burning up the forum, and keeping the hobby alive.

[ghosttrain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

After watching this for the sake of intellectual honesty I have to admit some points are inaccurate. Let's take the biggest number mentioned. The killing of more than a million of christians as well as many assyrians in the Ottoman empire in 1915 was because they were not turks rather than them not being muslim, it was for the sake of nationalistic cultural movement similar to Hitler's called turanism, not religious.

And the same misassociation can be seen in the review of battles between the 7th and 20th centuries. After the arabs (after 13-ish century?) many of the invasions were from Asia and Persia, from various turkish and mongol tribes mixed with persians. These people were originally nomads from Asia and although they all adopted islam they weren't muslims in the early stages of each invasion/empire. These were the nomads which made China build the Great Wall of China, which hints they were very powerful/dangerous. As to why all of them adopted islam instead of christianity I can't tell for certain as this is not my field but I assume conquered muslim Persia was a big influence for shaping their own new non-nomadic culture.

Sure, the first caliphs 1000 years ago were arab muslims related to Muhammad but then it was mostly nomads conquering and mixing their culture with local Persian/Arab.

The atrocities committed by the conquerors were terrible, but romans and persians did such things way before islam existed.

So I don't agree that islam has been trying to conquer Europe for 1400 years, people have been trying to conquer Europe for 1400 years. Sure, islam preaches to conquer the whole world, but the data provided isn't only related islam.

But still, those nomads are history now, yet islam still exists in its original form. That's still a problem even if everything mentioned in the video is not a result of islam.

[planters]

Fair enough.

So I don't agree that islam has been trying to conquer Europe for 1400 years, people have been trying to conquer Europe for 1400 years.

And some fraction, maybe a significant fraction were organized under Islamic flags. The magnitude of the accusations should certainly be questioned as you explain and I won't argue that point.

You do state an important fact that affects us now. Even if the Muslims weren't the first and never were the only ones, even if certain aggressors adopted Islam as a formalized religion and were aggressive before the adoption, the Mongols and the nomads are not threatening Europe tody, The Islamists (as you prefer) are.