You complained that media often does not refer to terrorists as muslims. (if I mis-state, please correct me. That inuendo thing, again.)
I asked the question (It was not rhetorical, by the way - and I would still like an answer. Though I admit that the question was in a post filled with rhetorical questions.): "What is the point of using language that implies to the weak-minded that Islam causes terrorism?" Logically, I was saying that the public tends to jump to conclusions not demonstrated. That saying "Islamic terrorists" would support the propositions (in the weak-minded) that "all Muslims are terrorists" or "many Muslims are terrorists".
Here is your mistake: you responded with a reference to support the proposition that "many or all terrorists are Muslims". This neither supports not denies what I said in my post. It is a new topic that, I guess, you would rather talk about.
I wish I could draw a Venn diagram to show you the difference. If you read the words a few times, I'm sure it will become clear, though.
Current Events » in reply to Go back to the article Mary Anne linked to before.
I'll spell it out slowly and show you where you made your mistake.
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Russia ready to strike against terror
- I re-state my prediction of a blood bath in Chechnya. Russia is not famous for mercy or moderation. (n/t)
- 50-60 thousand troops to Iraq would be a good start. (n/t)
- Agreed.
- It's called "anarchy".
- Hope they don't look too closely at northern Idaho... (n/t)
- they're still described as 'militants' by the press
- Words do matter.
- The Euphemism Collection
- re: You don't need to refer to them as Muslims. Its a given. Almost every terrorist is Muslim. Its a modern day fact. (n/t)
- Sort-of like calling all participants in organized crime "Italians".
- Nor males, nor deeply pigmented humans, nor Arabic-speakers...
- re: Good.
