CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why has the word terrorist been exlclusively reserved for muslim extremists
You should all know what im referring to here, in the moments preceeding the arrest of anders behring brevik western media (particularly american) had labelled the attack "islamic teorrism" in fact many mainstream news otlets went even further abd confirmed it was Al Queda (e.g. Fox), when the news began to filter out that a blond haired, blued eyed Norwegian was responsible the tone of the news coverage immediately changed across the board, no error was admitted on the part of any news station and it was quickly relabelled a right wing extremist attack, so why can this even not be labelled terrorism by our media? Has the West become so anti-islamic that we now only recognise their extremism as terrorism, i have long been of the view that terrorism comes in many forms, most of which are sanitised and not presented as terrorism at all. Islamic terrorism is a problem, theres no doubt, as is this new right wing western terrorism thats beginning to emerge but neither of these will ever compete with corporate and state sponsered terrorism (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan), this kind of wholesale terrorism is in another league to petty Al Queda operatives, a group ike Al Queda could never hope to destroy a whole country like Iraq, or kill 1.2 million of its inhabitants, but of course were tranined to think about these actions as being those of terrorism despite the similar results (i.e. death and destruction) on a much much wider scale.
Note: After receving complaints from two people i have to explicitly state that in no way has the word terrorist been officially changed to only represent muslims extremism
I think the answer is in the question itself. Media in west has become so possesive being anti Islam, that they are not able to look beyond Islam for the source of terrorism. The answer is in the below link.
This is also happening, since none of the Media barons are owned by Muslims. All the view points coming out from all those channels would be people who are anti muslims. Muslim perspective of news would be delivered by news channels such a Al-jazeera.
All forms of violence needs to be condoned, and also looked into the root cause.
In my column "It isn't fanaticism – it's evil," I wrote: "There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam. This involves terrorist acts in 26 countries worldwide. These people cannot be reasoned with. Their hatred is an anathema to all rational consideration. They have but one goal: to subdue the world under the rule of Islam." (WND, Aug. 12, 2006)
I don't believe the word is used totally to describe Islamic terrorism...but I beleive for the most part the majority of the terrorist acts in the world are committed by Islamic terrorist.
"In my column "It isn't fanaticism – it's evil," I wrote: "There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam. This involves terrorist acts in 26 countries worldwide. These people cannot be reasoned with. Their hatred is an anathema to all rational consideration. They have but one goal: to subdue the world under the rule of Islam." (WND, Aug. 12, 2006)"
This really distorts the main piotn of the debate, yes of the worlds recognised terrorist groups the majority are are affiliated with the islamic faith, but this really does distort the message. I mean these groups are recognised as being terrorsits but the actions of coutnries are far mroe destructive than any terrorist group, when Isreal murdered 1400 people in Gaza (over 400 children) and destroyed the infrastructure there was that called terrorism, what the US has done in iraq, is that terrorism, also the threat posed by muslim extremism has been one of the most over exaggerated phenomenon in the 21st century, with the demise of the soviet union a new bad guy was needed to justify americans imperialism, this is that new bad guy, americans were never in any real danger of this but they were made tio feel like Al Queda were ready to invade and take over for reasons that i shouldn't have to explain, for clarification read the works of George Orwell, and here i also found this artivle quite informative:
Ive read your article and i don't agree with it, its simply perpetuating the same propaganda that all other news outlets are guilty of, this issue of anti-islamic bias deserves recognition but its not going to get any as that doesnt serve elite interests, people need to think that the muslim faith wants to wipe us out and that all muslims are bad cause if we don't then mayeb we might not agree with the new unjust war thats waged.
"I don't believe the word is used totally to describe Islamic terrorism"
Thats not the piont, if pressed everyone will say that as to argue against it is follish and directly at odds witht the facts but the fact is it doesnt find its way into western discourse for a very good reason, the fact that this attack was called terrorism at first and was then immediately changed to right wing extremism is also no accident
"...but I beleive for the most part the majority of the terrorist acts in the world are committed by Islamic terrorist."
Well 1.2 million Iraqis are dead, does this not qualify as terrorism, i mean their country is in ruins but we don't call it terrorism but i can gaurantee you if you asked an Iaqri whose suffered at the hands of american imperialism like the majority in that coutnry i think they'd call it terrosim fairly quickly, thye may not be agreeing with the concensus established by us but are they less justified, if an Iraqi womas has lost her family due to an unjust invasion of her country by a foreign oppressive power does she not have the right to call the actiosn of that power terrorism? What about the drone attacks in Pakistan, relation between the US and Pakistan are very strained, i mean the corrupt puppet government that doesnt represeetn the people that you supply aid to is getting very annoyed because it knows that if you continue to murder its civlians indiscriminantly the poeple aren't going to stand for it any longer. Members of the CIA are flying drones with missiles into sovereign pakistani territory and killing huge numbers of civilians all just to assinate some taliban member, is this not terrorism?
•"The former chief counter-insurgency strategist for the US State Department has estimated that drone attacks kill 50 non-targeted persons for each intended target."
• “We have opened up a new realm of warfare, a new realm of breaking, breaching international and domestic law,” says Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002-2005."
Where is evidence that the word is "exclusively reserved for islamic extremists"? Is it because at this time, Islamofascism is what the West has been fighting? That doesn't reserve anything, that just means they want to talk about their current enemies.
McCain, a Republican (you guys remember him), said that abortion bombers were just as bad as the 9/11 hijackers. Glenn Beck (considered by many to be a Conservative type guy) said that the Norwegian shooter was just as bad as the 9/11 hijackers.
Bill O'Reilly has spoken of domestic or right-wing terrorists being just as bad as left-wing or islamic terrorists. He's considered by many to be a Conservative.
So if someone is reserving someone, we can rule-out the Conservatives, right?
Okay... so who is to blame for this reservation? You believe that it exists? Well, I'm sure that you don't pull shit out of your ass to stir up controversy, so it MUST be the Liberals or moderates... right? Okay.
"Where is evidence that the word is "exclusively reserved for islamic extremists"?"
The evidence is quite staggering actually, im very surprised you actually asked this question, in answer to this astounding question i refer you to any western mainstream media outlet prior to finding out who was responsible for the attack, every single one (without fail both in europq and american) had labelled it islamic terrosism most likely Al Queda and then quickly changed it to right wing extremism, this is because they don't want to call it terrorism, that nasty word and all its associated connotations are reserved for Islamic extremism.
" Is it because at this time, Islamofascism is what the West has been fighting?"
Please elaborate if you would.
"McCain, a Republican (you guys remember him), said that abortion bombers were just as bad as the 9/11 hijackers."
This isn't about people condeming attacks, so fucking what if McCain compared certain event to 9/11, many people did this after the events of 9/11 became a common part of american political discourse, i mean theres a video of Julian saying 9/11 like 12 times in a speech many of the pionts not even being related to 9/11, 9/11 was simply on the brain because it was being used for a variety of political purposes, its no accident that received so much air time (even in europe it was played for almost a year everyday around other stories).
This debate is about terminology, and Orwellian trickery, and how it was so obvious exposed in the events preceeding the discovery of the norwegian attackers identity. I have only seen news stations outside the western ones actually talk about this, none of the western station even admitted there was a mistake, this also is not accidental, i advise you to watch the coverage of the event (when the info. about Anders Brevik became known) on some mainstream stations outside the west, the complexion of the situation changes quite a bit.
"Glenn Beck (considered by many to be a Conservative type guy) said that the Norwegian shooter was just as bad as the 9/11 hijackers."
My God man, Fox News was the only station tio come and say it was Al Queda, get grip and stop trying to defend your views that are clearly biased. You call me an ideologue yet you are totally unaware of your own ideological position which is anything but impartial despite what you have convinced yourself of.
"So if someone is reserving someone, we can rule-out the Conservatives, right?
No not at all but keep convinving yourself of that you're very good at it.
"Okay... so who is to blame for this reservation? You believe that it exists? Well, I'm sure that you don't pull shit out of your ass to stir up controversy, so it MUST be the Liberals or moderates... right? Okay."
The forces of rapacious power and the eleite establishment are, you see liberal and conservatives, or this and that, i see the concentration of power in the hands of a tiny select few and a system that supports them and not the majority.
Now these Orwellian games are no secret to those of us that have accepted them as being a fact, intelligence has very little to do with, once you lose faith in the establishment its subtle and devious machinations begin to unravel, one very simple and explanatory example i rememeber reading about was the words "peace process", two very simply words, well someone asked chomsky why america was always invloved in the peace process (i don't have a source for this handly at the moment but i can get it if you really want it) and chomsky stated that by definition america is always involved in the peace process, even if its the one bombing or invading a country, if you read about it in western media you won't find any reference to america not being invloved in the peace process so this man went away and did a project reaserching the New York Times for twenty years and sure enough america was never not involved in the opeace process even in situations where it would be perfectly acceptable not to be involved in it, but no, by defintion America always supports and is involved in the peace process even if this directly contradicts the facts, thats the kind o0f subtle Orwellian trickery that goes largely unnoticed but subliminally effects peoples opinions, like your for instance.
You STILL have not provided ANY evidence of reservations of the term terrorist to ONLY mean Islamic extremists. When I bring up O'Reilly, McCain, and Beck (all conservatives, and only ONE who said this on Fox News, because Beck no longer had his show when he talked about Norway, but I'm sure your mistake is justified), you just say "omg, that doesn't compare to everyone else" as if there's this vast conspiracy where everyone is trying to brainwash us into thinking that the only terrorists are Muslims.
But in the end, since no evidence has been provided, I can not accept what you say.
"You STILL have not provided ANY evidence of reservations of the term terrorist to ONLY mean Islamic extremists. "
The evidence is in the way the story was reported in western media immediately after the events transpired.
"s on Fox News, because Beck no longer had his show when he talked about Norway,but I'm sure your mistake is justified"
What you mentioned Beck, i know he no longer has his show on Fox, piont is Fox called it an Al Queda attack before anyone even knew who was doing the attacking, can you not see the bias in that?
""omg, that doesn't compare to everyone else""
What, thats not what im saying.
"as if there's this vast conspiracy where everyone is trying to brainwash us into thinking that the only terrorists are Muslims. "
Its not a conspiracy, people often say that to chomsky as well but his answer is really simple, no its not a vast conspiracy the facts are available.
"But in the end, since no evidence has been provided, I can not accept what you say."
the links may be messed up, because they seem to have taken me to pages without stories on "reserving the term terrorist to only mean islamic extremists".
"the links may be messed up, because they seem to have taken me to pages without stories on "reserving the term terrorist to only mean islamic extremists""
Again as i have said to you before ididn't mean it in the sense that oxford and websters dictionaries have now exclusively reserved the word terrorist for muslims extremism, you decided that for yourself, as i said before this is about western bias and how that effects the terminology and discourse, if you want to take issue with the title of the debate fair enough, the word hasn't actually been exclusively reserved for islamic extremism, you seem to be the only person incapable of not taking this statement literally, my piont is very clear and is immediately apparent to anyone who was following the events in norway minute by minute on western media. To suggest that no bias exists is to deny the reality of the reporting of that incident but you much rather get bogged down in the semantics of what i wrote, isn't that right? Ive been in enough debates with you to see what your game is.
You think what i wrote was a cheap argument tactic, thats a strange assessment, im sorry i wasn't clearer in the title of the debate but my piont stands, there is a significant bias against the islamic faith, it is the only racism that is (virtually) condoned in the west (especially america), i admit this isn't in law or anything but this incident only highlights it.
Your attack on the West is unfair. It is true that there are racists who hate Muslims, and in the West some of them are even politicians, but compared to what? What kind of ideal region have you been living where racism is non-existent and everyone holds hands and lives in harmony?
The UK, if anything, has given into irrational demands from Muslims (Sharia Law). The United States is letting that mosque be built in Ground Zero (and I believe that is right, but this is not something that you would expect from other nations to accept, especially since the leader of the Islamic center has made anti-American remarks and has even shown support for various Islamic organizations who are anti-American, but in this great country where Free Speech is more important than ideology, a Mosque can be built by the ruins of a building destroyed by Muslim extremists).
It seems that unless the West starts condemning people for expressing hatred towards Muslims, you will not be satisfied. Well, some western nations have outlawed blasphemy. Are those your ideal nations? Maybe the West isn't so bad.
And there are plenty of racists in America. great thing about that is that they hate people of all kinds. There are rednecks who hate muslims, blacks who hate asians, hispanics who hate blacks, and asians who hate white people. It's called diversity, and if you add the First Amendment to that diversity, the result is going to be intolerance and racism. But I'd prefer that way over living in the Middle East. I'm only allowed to hate Jews over there.
I've tried not to suggest that the US is that great of a country, but for you to go after the West for being racist towards Muslims is downright dishonest. In the Middle East, even the Muslims hate the muslims. they just hate the ones that aren't Muslim enough, or not the right kind of Muslim.
" It is true that there are racists who hate Muslims,"
It isn't just the blantant racism of which im sure there isn't a huge amount of, its the common racism in the form of the ignorance of the masses in america who have no conception of what a muslim is, this is very pervasive in america and i don't feel teh need to apologise for pionting that out.
"What kind of ideal region have you been living where racism is non-existent and everyone holds hands and lives in harmony?"
This is irrelevant, im mrely pionting out the extreme xenophobia that exists in the west directly solely at the muslim faith.
" but in this great country where Free Speech is more important than ideology"
Please give me a break the american public are among the most manipulated by their media in the world, free speech or no free speech
"It seems that unless the West starts condemning people for expressing hatred towards Muslims, you will not be satisfied."
You just don't get it do you, the fact is anti-islamic sentiment is being perpetuated in the west because it suits the agenda of western power.
"Maybe the West isn't so bad."
I never said it was you assumed that for yourself, do you think it will get better if things aren't acknowledged, and simply denied?
"but for you to go after the West for being racist towards Muslims is downright dishonest"
and of course, you provide nothing but saying "dude, the media and culture encourage islamophobia" and then post a link to wikipedia about islamophobia.
even better, ignoring the fact that islamophobia is worse in countries where there are a lot of muslims.
You can dress it up whatever way you like, everybody knows Islamophobia is almost encouraged in the west because it suits the power elites agenda to have people split along ethic, religious, racial et.c etc. lines
Please watch the following it expresses my sentiments better than i ever could:
No one is denying that there is prejudice against Muslims in the west, what we are disputing is your statement that terrorist is used EXCLUSIVELY to describe Muslims. This is very easy to disprove, all it takes is one counter example.
"No one is denying that there is prejudice against Muslims in the west, what we are disputing is your statement that terrorist is used EXCLUSIVELY to describe Muslims. This is very easy to disprove, all it takes is one counter example."
Ive included a disclaimer in the description cause you the second person to misunderstand the purpose of this debate. I meant that terrorsit is dirty word and thus it has been ascribed to to the perceived enemy. An example to demonstrate what i mean "peace process" which has the meaning "process leading to peace" is a phrase used to describe whatever the Us is doing in the world without exception. Whether the Us is blocking peace, or they are ones causing the war, by definition they are always involved in the peace process, these are the Orwellian tactics used by the media (in general) particularly in the US. The palestians are routinely referred to as terrorists, even if all they are doing is defending themselves and their homes but try to find a maninstream news report in the US that calls anything the Isrealis do terrorism, its not that they haven't done things much more atrocious than the palestians, i mean look at Gaza in '09, that was large scale terrorism, it was presented as a war but they encountered no resistance, they were just attacking civilians, but try to find someone call that terrorism.
"Here we have the President of the "progressive" state of Iran who accuses the west of stealing their rain with scientific gadgetry."
I heard of this before, i don't see its relevance, if the majority of the population of a country are in support of the government then it is functioning democracy and thus it is at the very least more progressive than Kuwait. Now if you'd like me to dig up crazy speculative reports from the cold war where top US officials claimed the USSR were doing comparable things id be happy to.
Ive included a disclaimer in the description cause you the second person to misunderstand the purpose of this debate.
There is no trying to skirt around the issue of your blatantly false claim. The word "exclusively" doesn't allow for a whole lot of wiggle room here. Don't try to play semantics with me.
You made a claim and you were wrong, don't try the "well, what I actually meant was..." bullshit. You made a very clear and refutable claim and I refuted it.
"There is no trying to skirt around the issue of your blatantly false claim. The word "exclusively" doesn't allow for a whole lot of wiggle room here. Don't try to play semantics with me."
Im not trying to skirt around anything, i admit i phrased the title of the debate in a manner that word catch peoples attention but trying to suggest that i actually think (ot thought) the word terrorism had been exclusively reserved for muslims is just ridiculous. I was very surprised when the Pyg complained about this and im equally surprised you're making such a big deal of it, i honestly never meant for the claim to taken literally and i though people would understand that.
"You made a very clear and refutable claim and I refuted it."
Fair enough, i should have been more careful in the way i phrased the title, but i have to re-iterate i never made the claim, or at least i never intentionally made the claim, i obviously inadvertently made the claim you think i made nor did i phrase it that way as some tactic. I can assure i never thought people would take the title literally.
Fox called it an Al Queda attack before anyone even knew who was doing the attacking
Yes, because FOX represents the views of the entire western world. The initial reports that I read indicated that while it was possible it was an Al Qaeda attack due to the History of the area, but because of the location and nature of the attack that it was very unlikely that AL Qaeda or other Muslim extremist groups were responsible.
This is confirmation bias. You remember reports which confirm your convictions but have ignored those that don't.
"Yes, because FOX represents the views of the entire western world."
I only highlighted Fox cause they were one of the few to unequivocally state it was Al Qaida.
"he initial reports that I read indicated that while it was possible it was an Al Qaeda attack due to the History of the area, but because of the location and nature of the attack that it was very unlikely that AL Qaeda or other Muslim extremist groups were responsible."
I don't know exactly what repsrts you you read and frankly i don't care, the entire western worlds media was pretty unanimous in calling this muslim terrorism.
"This is confirmation bias. You remember reports which confirm your convictions but have ignored those that don't."
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, look if you don't beleive me watch this Al Jazeera report which was the catalyst for me creating this debate:
"Gary: "...the entire western worlds media was pretty unanimous in calling this muslim terrorism.""
Look im not going to pretend that i know what every western media outlets position on this was but i do know that the overwhelming majority of them assumed it was islamic extremism, and thus decided to call it terrorism. Please watch the Al Jazeera it covers this issue very well, and completely objectively.
"This speaks for itself."
I really don't know what you're trying to insinuate here but i stand by this debate and all my subsequent arguments, im not trying to backtrack or whatever, the debate title was never meant to be taken literally, i thought that would be obvious, i mean i hardly meant that the dictionary definition had changed to exclusively reserve the word terrorist for muslims.
Are you oblivious to your own contradicting statements? How can it be "pretty unanimous" if only a few stations (by your own admission) actually say this? You are making yet more hasty generalizations.
Most western media said it COULD be Al Qaeda. Given attacks on Norwegian Embassies in various cities throughout the middle east over the cartoonist incident It wouldn't be unreasonable to say this attack as well COULD be the result of Muslim outrage.
"Are you oblivious to your own contradicting statements? How can it be "pretty unanimous" if only a few stations (by your own admission) actually say this?"
If i had said unanimous you would have pounced on me and said thats ridiculous as no news story is ever covered in the same manner on every network across the board, across the atlantic, so i said pretty unanimous because the repoting was more or less the same from what i saw.You clearly didn't watch the video i presented so here are station that reported the attack as Islamic terrorism:
Fox
MSNBC
CNN
Sky News
CBS
Russia Today
ABC
BBC
Of these stations as far as i know Fox and MSNBC called it not only "Islamic terrorism" but stated unequivocally that it was Al Queda, the reporting of these stations (let alone the littany of reports an op-eds) all called it "Islamic terrorism" before the facts became known, when it became known that it was a blond haired blue eyed man the terminology quickly changed to "right wing extremism". Thats why i psoted the debate, you can say what you want but you cannot deny the reality of what was reported.
The very first report that I have read said that it was a possible it may have been Islamic terrorism however that this would be unlikely considering the location and the target of the attack. Either the report that I read was in the vast minority or you are just making generalizations (again) while you accuse "Western Media" of making generalizations.
"Either the report that I read was in the vast minority or you are just making generalizations (again) while you accuse "Western Media" of making generalizations."
I can't beleive you're still arguing this, im n ot making any generalisation, i already gave you the list of major news networks that reported the story by claiming it was islamic terrrorism, here they are again:
Fox
MSNBC
CNN
Sky News
CBS
Russia Today
ABC
BBC
And heres the Al Jazeera programme i watched that brought that to my attention:
Now i read this in numerous articles as well and heard on lots of radio programmes so my suspicion was already very much aroused by i wouldn't have created a debate about this media bias unless i had a credible source supprting my claim, if want to accuse me of making sweeping generalisations your're going to have to do the same to the people who host Al Jazeera's the listening post
