Saw this discussion in the washington post today:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost..._terrorists/all.html

The question is whether calling groups like al queda "islamic terrorists" instead of just "terrorists" is more correct/a better strategy/counter-productive/etc.  I read a number of the posts, and found myself agreeing with people on "both" sides were saying--which is often a sign that they're arguing different points.

On the one hand, those saying "let's be truthful, they are islamic terrorists," had a point.  There is a large degree of religious motivation in their acts, they believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their acts, etc.  "Islamic terrorists" is an accurate description, I'd say.

On the other hand, not all muslims are terrorists and it's not fair to imply that all muslims support terrorism (all the posters seemed to agree on this, though some of the readers' replies seemed to question it).  Also, the terrorists tend to want people to view the conflicts they're in as religious in nature.  So is it a good idea to just say "terrorists" instead of "islamic terrorists?"  Both are accurate, one is more specific, but that's perhaps not the point.

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest.  I don't fault anyone for saying "islamic terrorists," since it's accurate, but at the same time I don't see any problem with just calling them "terrorists" and think doing so may help avoid giving the terrorists what they want (everyone thinking it's a holy war).

Another example that comes to mind is that Fred Phelps, westboro baptists church guy.  I think everyone here agrees that he is a hateful jerk (if anyone doesn't agree, we can discuss it in a different thread, but I tried to pick someone I thought everyone agreed on here, which is hard!), and is christian.  It'd be accurate to say he's a hateful christian jerk.  But is that unfair to the many christians who are neither hateful not jerks?  Does phrasing it that way cast derision on christianity in general (or at least create the appearance of doing so)?  There will be some who will say that Fred Phelps isn't christian, because he doesn't live by their understanding of Jesus' teachings, but the same can be said of terrorists not living by the 'proper' teachings of islam.  In each case, I think the labels of "christian" or "Muslim" are accurate, even if I don't think the people being described by those labels live up to the teachings of their religions.  But is accuracy/specificity what's important?  Should we call them "brown-eyed terrorists" if they happen to have brown eyes?  "Hateful, blond-haired jerks?" if they happen to have blond hair?

What do you guys think?

It's what the terrorists call themselves.  They self-identify, and justify their actions through islam.


It wouldn't be the same with "brown eyed terrorists,"  unless you had organizations proclaiming "we the Brown Eyed reject your Blue Eyed world, Death to the Blue Eyed, the Brown Eyed Martyrs will rule heaven!" yada yada yada.

In which case, the label would fit.

So, they self-identify, they base their behaviors on that identification, it seems rather obvious.

Really, has any other terrorist group ever gotten such a deferential treatment that their own self identification is ignored?

Can you imagine Sendero Luminoso having to correct people?

"Look, we're COMMUNIST terrorists.  We are not just ordinary thugs.  Communism.  We are doing this is in the name of COMMUNISM.  Call us Communist Terrorists".

At which point, would the reaction be.."Yeah, but millions of communists don't support terrorism".

I can picture guerrilla leader facepalming.

Maybe the way out is to call them something like "Terrorists who think they are muslim but really aren't".  That would fit in with the "these people are twisting the religion" narrative.  But the problem there is that unless it is said by someone with muslim "street cred" it means nothing.  George Bush claimed they were "twisting" islam.  Osama Bin Laden spent his whole life studying islam.  Who are you going to believe?

Fair point on the brown-eyed issue.

Do you think that calling them what they want to be called is perhaps playing into their hand?  Do you think that by just calling them terrorists, we send a message of not viewing this as a holy war?  If they call themselves "revolutionaries" instead, should we use that term?  I'd guess that many of them don't call themselves terrorists.  Should we not use that term then, and just use whatever they call themselves?

I'm not sure that intentionally not calling them islamic is "deferential treatment."  As you say, it's what they want to be seen as.  I could see calling them "just" terrorists would be more of an insult in some ways.

Your example with Sendero Luminoso is humorous, but imagine if that situation actually did occur.  It would be great, in my opinion, if al queda had to spend some time jumping up and down trying to convince the world that they were fighting in the name of islam.  It's not realistic to expect it to reach that point, I know, especially just by dropping an adjective, but if we could send the message that we don't view this as a war between islam and [whatever "we" are--the west?  the us?  non-muslims?], I think that could undermine their message that it is.

I should point out that I'm not meaning to disagree with you here.  I'm still trying to figure out what I think on the issue, and I'm going to probably challenge any ideas people bring up with questions, just to get a better idea of the various lines of reason being used.  At the moment I think that both sides are over-simplifying the issue slightly.  One side to "they are islamic terrorists, so that's what we should call them," (the premise is true, but does the conclusion actually follow?), and the other to "calling them islamic terrorists tars all muslims unfairly" (the stated result is something we should try to avoid, but does it actually follow from calling them islamic?).  Is it possible that the most accurate descriptor is not the best one strategically?

Actually, what about this idea:  just call them Al queda terrorists, or Hamas terrorists, or whatever terrorists, referencing their organization, rather than their religion?  Both accurate, and non-inclusive of non-terrorists muslims.  I suppose it doesn't apply as a general descriptor, but perhaps that's a good thing?  Sticking to specifics makes it a bit more difficult for politicians to hand-wave and mislead, no?

If you are refering to a specific group that works. Given that some people in Islam do assert that terrorism runs counter to Islam I think 'allegedy Muslim terrorists' would acurate, give a nod to those who woudl reject them and undermine the position of teh terrorists themselves while still managing to identify who it is we are talking about.

OOh, there's an inspired idea!  If we want to insult them...

What if the whole world referred to them as "Jewish terrorists" and simply refused to acknowledge the fact that they were anything else?

It would drive them freaking INSANE.

"In southern Lebanon today, Hassan Nasrallah, leader of a traditional Jewish sect, promised retaliation for..."

"...and the prisoners at the camp are provided with Kosher meals to accomodate their faith..."

"...Pakistani officials report that Jewish extremists are still in control of several key crossroads as the Pakistani army..."

Given much of the value of terrorism is leveraging the news media to get your message out to the public, this would be very effective both at attacking them back, and reducing their effectiveness.