If by ‘good’ you mean the glaring mistake as early as the second paragraph, and the begs-the-question headline, then sure; it’s a good article.
Hey, kids! Let's play White Terrorism Bingo
caze
#98
That headline is not an example of either of the definitions of ‘begs-the-quesiton’ (i.e. circular argument or rhetorical device), it’s merely a statement which the ensuing article argues for.
The three statements in the 2nd paragraph also seem to be perfectly cromulent (the WWIII comment at worst is a bit of an exaggeration, but not in anyway a glaring mistake).
Salafist Terrorism
IronEdithKidd
#104
Attacks on women’s reproductive clinics are intended to instill fear in women’s reproductive health care providers and patients with the intent of making abortion services impossible to obtain, even if that wasn’t a service available at the targeted clinic. The very definition of a terrorist act - violence perpetrated with the intent of fomenting a change in policy. In this case, I believe it’s perfectly fair to call the perpetrator a Christian terrorist.
Humbabella
#105
I agree with both you and @gregmcph here. It is both true that: 1) Since “terrorist” is current a synonym for “no legal rights” we shouldn’t really be used that term for anyone and that “murderer” is preferable; and 2) There is an obvious double standard by which we will not call right-wing-American terrorism “terrorism” and refusal to call them terrorists (when we can’t really stop people from calling right-wing-middle-eastern terrorism against the west “terrorism”) is playing into a kind of racism.
It feels like a rock and a hard place to me.
newliminted
#108
1 in 11 is quite high, if you are talking about 4%. That would actually be more like 1 in 25.
doop
#112
I’m sorry to gloss over all of that but I have to ask, do you have a central point that you’re arguing here? This is too much and I don’t know where to start responding.
“Synonymous” means “identical in meaning” and is hence a reflexive relationship. Is control synonymous with religion?
caze
#113
I’m sorry to gloss over all of that but I have to ask, do you have a central point that you’re arguing here? This is too much and I don’t know where to start responding.
Go back and re-read my original posts, subsequent posts have been mostly about correcting your mischaracterisation of my views (and adding further detail to remove any possible confusion). The initial point was that there is nothing wrong with using the phrase “Islamic terrorism” when it’s warranted by the facts, just as there’s nothing wrong with using “Christian terrorism” when similarly warranted.
“Synonymous” means “identical in meaning” and is hence a reflexive relationship. Is control synonymous with religion?
It doesn’t only mean that, it also means “Closely associated with or suggestive of something”.
LDoBe
#114
The word “religion” itself means regulation, or control, if you will. At it’s most basic religion is a set of protocols that one must follow. And protocols and rules serve to control. Not always bad, but religion and control of people are intimately woven together from the very beginning.
IronEdithKidd
#121
@Falcor: Could you move the derail discussion re: Islamic terrorists to its own thread?
doop
#122
Hahahah, yes. It’s an accepted fact from just about every point of view except for directly underneath the bomb coming down on your house.
I agree with everything in your post up to and including this sentence. My point wasn’t to equate the two, only to point out that killing civilians can be justified without appeal to religion. That the two things can be equated, and when it’s your own children being euphemistically called “collateral” you may be inclined to accept the equivalence, wrong as it may be. It’s not a justification I agree with (you don’t think I’m actually arguing for the slaughter of civilians do you? I live just down the road, it could have been me), but such a justification does exist.
Can you please quote where I said that? I don’t see it and I would like to retract it if I did. For someone who complains about their argument being mischaracterised, you spend an awful lot of time talking past me…
Well yeah, the difference is that the IRA were playing a home game. You don’t attack civilians when you are the civilians. Except of course, what the IRA was doing took place against a background of ongoing Protestant-Catholic violence, so I don’t know if they’re such a great example for what you’re arguing.
Also, Northern Ireland is still under the Queen’s rule. Whatever the IRA did, they failed. Just goes to show that hitting military targets is an ineffective strategy.
There’s a popular sentiment right now here in Paris that François Hollande and the French state are off playing war games and it’s the rest of us who are made to pay for their deeds. If instead Daesh attacked François Hollande or the French state, it wouldn’t create that same sentiment.
Fine but, humour me? You are the leader of Daesh, you’ve laid claim to a chunk of territory big enough to call a country and now you’re trying to get foreign nations to piss off out of it and leave you alone. How do you achieve that? I think you’d struggle to do better than sapping popular support for the engagement.
Holy shit, did you just forget about the entire Roman empire?
Shit buddy, so far by my count we’ve concluded exactly fuck all. But my point all along has been that Islam is incidental, that it is used to justify courses of action that have been arrived at due to entirely separate reasons. So when you tell me that ten years ago Islam was being used as justification for some other bullshit, you’re still talking past me.
milliefink
#123
@Falcor: Why is so much of a thread on white terrorism taken by a discussion of Islamic terrorism? (As if that doesn’t already happen too much elsewhere!)
