"The European Union is set to remove derogatory terminology about Islam like "Islamic terrorism" and "fundamentalists" in its new lexion of public communication to make clear that terrorists are hijacking the religion, an EU official revealed on Tuesday, April 11.

"Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," the official told Reuters.

The official, speaking anonymously because the review is an internal one that is not expected to be made public, said the point of using careful language was not to "fall into the trap" of offending and alienating citizens.

"You don't want to use terminology which would aggravate the problem. This is an attempt ... to be aware of the sensitivities implied by the use of certain language," he said.

"It is to help us understand what we are saying and try to avoid making mistakes," he said of the lexicon, who is expected to be adopted initially in June.

EU counter-terrorism chief Gijs de Vries said that terrorism was not inherent to any religion, and praised Muslims for opposing attempts by terrorists abusing Islam.

"They have been increasingly active in isolating the radicals who abuse Islam for political purposes, and they deserve everyone's support. And that includes the choice of language that makes clear that we are talking about a murderous fringe that is abusing a religion and does not represent it," he told Reuters."

Go ahead, old-reb, I'm waiting for your predictable bemoaning of political correctness in the recognition of Europe that Islam itself isn't violent.

"Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," the official told Reuters.

What's the difference? I don't see how the term "Islamic terrroism" implies that all Muslims are terrorists.

"The European Union is set to remove derogatory terminology about Islam like "Islamic terrorism" and "fundamentalists" in its new lexion of public communication to make clear that terrorists are hijacking the religion, an EU official revealed on Tuesday, April 11.
What's fucking the point? However much the media and government bend over backwards to not tread on the toes of Islam, British muslims still scream "media conspiracy and distortion!"

I know this first hand being an unusually multicultural guy in my lifestyle. I've known, worked with, socialised with and bought grass from many a muslim. Even those moderates who are indeed nice people harbour the crankiest of paranoid theories once you gain their trust and they open up to you.

What's the difference? I don't see how the term "Islamic terrroism" implies that all Muslims are terrorists.

"Islamic terrroism" only implies a lack of diligence in spell-checking.

"Islamic terrorism," however, implies that the terrorist actions are coming from the religion, not from radical groups within the Islamic community, and fails to appreciate the diversity of character in Islamic culture. Much of the Islamic community embraced the term "Islamist," perhaps that term is better suited.

What's fucking the point?

Was that an intentional slip?

The point is to promote intelligent and reasonable discussion by using accurate terms in official communications, not to silence crybabies.

Was that an intentional slip?
heh - no it was a typo.

What's fucking the point?

MY HUGE DONG!!!

The EU is made up of a bunch of pussies with no guts. Call them what you will, they are still Islamic Terrorists.

Call them what you will, they are still Islamic Terrorists.

I think the point is that their religion is somewhat irrelevant to why we label them terrorists. Eric Rudolph wasn't labelled a "Christian terrorist" when he blew up abortion clinics and gay bars...he was labelled a nut-job as he should have been. Why must we call Islamics who happen to be terrorists "Islamic" instead of "nut-jobs"?

Eric Rudolph was labled a right wing Christian terrorist. He was so labled because that is what he was. His acts of terrorism were a direct byproduct of his ultra conservative form of Christianity.

The Islamic terrorists are exactly that, Islamic terrorists. There terrorism is a direct result of their interpretation of their religion. Were they committing acts of terrorism because of economic reasons they would be correctly labled economic terrorists. If they were committing acts of terrorism because of ecology or animal rights they would be labled eco terrorists as members of ALF and ELF are.

These people are Islamic terrorists and that is what they should be called.

These people are Islamic terrorists and that is what they should be called.
================================
Ditto!
Or,
since they terrorize infidels, how about Infidel Terrorists.

Dan, I see from your profile that you like fishing. How about catching a nice big grouper and sending it up to me. Aside from the weather that is what I miss most about Florida since I am back on Long Island is the great seafood. I went to my local fishmonger and he told me he can't get grouper up here.

Frogger, I mainly fresh water fish now.

lol :rolleyes:

We'll have to get together and do a little bass fishin' one of these days. I understand they hit pretty good on chartreuse worms.

Eric Rudolph was labled a right wing Christian terrorist. He was so labled because that is what he was. His acts of terrorism were a direct byproduct of his ultra conservative form of Christianity.

Bullshit. They still won't call him that:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/25/rudolph.victim.ap/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(from Juan Cole)

Christian Terrorist Rudolph Sentenced
What the Rightwing Press Will not Say

Notorious Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph was sentenced to two life terms on Monday. The one-time fugitive had carried out four bombings that terrorized the southeastern areas of the United States. Among his crimes were the blowing up of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed a policeman, and a bombing of the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia.

As his sister-in-law made clear, Rudolph is driven by the ideology of the "Christian Identity" hate group. Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing was likewise connected to Christian identity and their "Elohim City".

Of course, you won't see the headline above in American newspapers, even though any Muslim who acts as Rudolph did would be called an "Islamic terrorist" (a particularly objectionable term because "Islamic" means "having to do with the Muslim faith). It is like talking about "terrorism rooted in Christianity."

Other things you won't see in the American press about this story (satire alert):

Thomas Friedman will not write an op-ed for the New York Times about what is wrong with white southern Christian males that they keep producing these terrorists. He will also not ask why Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not denouncing Eric Rudolph every day at the top of their lungs.

No reporter will interview frightened Iraqis about their fears at hearing that there are 138,000 armed Christians in their country belonging to the same faith as the bomber, Rudolph, some of them from his stomping grounds of Florida and North Carolina.

Daniel Pipes will not write a column for the New York Post suggesting that white southern Christians be put in internment camps until it can be determined why they keep producing terrorists and antisemites.

George W. Bush will not issue a statement that "Christianity is a religion of peace and we will not allow the Eric Rudolphs to hijack it for their murderous purposes."

Frank Gaffney will not write a column for the Washington Post castigating the Republican Party for appeasement in surrendering to the terrorist threats of radical Christians, by now opposing reproductive rights.

Max Boot will not point out that if the United States could only keep the Philippines in the early twentieth century by killing 400,000 Filipinos, than that was what needed to be done, and if the US can only beat back radical Christians by killing 400,000 of them, then that may just be necessary.

Pat Buchanan will not write a column blasting King George III for having promoted the illegal immigration into the American south of criminal elements, whose maladjusted descendants are still making trouble.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/christian-terrorist-rudolph-sentenced.html

If they were committing acts of terrorism because of ecology or animal rights they would be labled eco terrorists as members of ALF and ELF are. eco-terrorists drive hummers...

might I also point out that members of ALF and ELF have never killed anyone ever. You can call them criminals or over-zealous but to label them terrorists is fallacious. You might as well label Wal-Mart 'workers rights terrorists' for their illegal union busting activities if you want to go that far...

eco-terrorists drive hummers...

might I also point out that members of ALF and ELF have never killed anyone ever.

No, but burning a Hummer spews out more pollution in an hour than driving a Hummer does in it's lifetime.

Originally Posted by 500lbguerilla
eco-terrorists drive hummers...

might I also point out that members of ALF and ELF have never killed anyone ever.

Not through a lack of trying though. Do you think spiking trees with nails so high powered chain saws would explode into lots of potentially deadly pieces was meant as a joke? It was meant to cause severe bodily injury or death to loggers.

they hasn't been tree spiking in 30 years. The reason: Judy Bari. And look what the terrorist FBI did to her for bringing peace between the 2 groups...