First you say that one can't find anyone referring to Muslims as terrorists ... or terrorists as Muslims... I'm not sure which you were after.
And then you find an example right off. How about that?
The difference is, the author of the article was referring to "us". He is Muslim and part of the community that needs to discuss this.
You are referring to "them", the Other, and in a way that does absolutely no good to any discussion that moderate (that is to say, "sane") Muslims wish to initiate in their own community. You're talking like a person who wants an excuse to tap every mullah's phone. Unfortunately, you are the soul of tact compared with a million or so Muslim-haters out there, and they are contributing to the conversation in a way that hands the Muslims' conversation over to the other radical idiots on the other side.
Current Events » in reply to Go back to the article Mary Anne linked to before.
Okaaaay....
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.
