Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

"Many"

The term "Many" implies more than half. Please use "Some" instead. Extc

Actually, it implies 'a large number'. Palmiro | Talk 16:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "some" makes the party look isolated, while many shows that while they may not be the majority, they are a significant force.--Urthogie 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah

I wonder could we have sources for the information about various people considering these two organisations to be terrorists? The Lebanese government is democratic and neither it nor the Lebanese press describes Hezbollah as terrorist. In fact, practically nobody in the Middle East - outside Israel of course - would describe it as such. And much as I dislike the Muslim Brotherhood, its Egyptian branch hasn't been engaged in any terrorism lately as far as I know. Palmiro | Talk 16:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by Canada [1] and the US. The Muslim Brotherhood article doesn't mention any terrorist activities. --Lee Hunter 16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that some Western governments consider HA a terrorist organisation, but not all, and there is no source given for the comment about newpapers in democracies, while the stuff about the EU is simply wrong. Unless there is a good argument given to the contrary, I feel inclined to put my version back in, which also included what I thought was good information about the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, one of the most notorious early manifestations of Islamist terrorism.

Regarding non-Muslims' views of the Hizb and Hamas, here are a couple of links re the former organisation: [2] [3] [4] which indicate that even such a stalwart of the Maronite position as Sfeir doesn't view them as such. Palmiro | Talk 16:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read this sourced wikipedia paragraph on the article on hezbollah which proves that the EU et. al consider it to be either a terrorist group or a wing of it to be terrorists.[5] As far as the muslim brotherhood, i didnt put that in the article and if its not a terrorist group its good that we removed it. I'll double check. Much thanks, --Urthogie 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have indeed read it, and I think I actually wrote that paragraph in its current form! Yes, the EU categorises the HA's "external security" wing as a terrorist organisation, but it has very carefully refrained from categorising the group as a whole as such, despite some considerable political pressure on it to do so. This being the case, we can't say "the EU says HA are terrorists".

Do you have any source re AI and the UN?Palmiro | Talk 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, UN doesn't call it terrorist(my mistake, sry). Ill correct the EU thing too. Lastly, I'll look into muslim brotherhood. Thanls, --Urthogie 16:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

205.161.9.9 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) "Although Hezbollah is not yet banned in Australia, since late 2001it has been a criminal offence under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 and the Charter of the United Nations(Terrorism and Dealings with Assets) Regulations 2002, to fund orresource the group" [6]

Does this directly implicate the UN in the decision, or not? Are these Australian regulations a transposition of the UN's decisions or do they also include the Australian government's own views? Palmiro | Talk 16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, re Hizbullah: I don't think any of the states/organisations listed in the article believes their attacks on Israeli targets in the Shebaa farms area constitute terrorism, although they do generally believe that they are unjustified because of the UN decision placing the farms on the Syrian side of the international border, which meant that HA as a Lebanese resistance organisation was not in any way entitled to engage in resistance activities there. I think, but amn't sure, that the rationale was in fact the bombings and kidnappings thaht took place around the 1982 period (and that HA has never accepted responsibility for) and a couple of more recent incidents like the Argentina synagogue bomb. I'll edit out the reference to attacks on Israelis on this basis (unless a source can be found for it, of course, but I'm fairly sure about this).

On a smaller point, the military arm that the UNSC called for the disbandment of is not the same as the external security organisation which the EU categorises as terrorist. The former is the military organisation known as the Islamic Resistance, which is HA's militia/army involved in the civil war and the resistance in the south. The latter appears to be a sort of intelligence wing.

Finally, the sentence in the HA paragraph about the views of "Islamists" is a relic from when this was a more general paragraph, and I will replace it with something more specific.Palmiro | Talk 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pentagon shares similar views?

The linked article and the quote do not support the statement that "the Pentagon in the United States of America shares similar views." There's no evidence, nor even a clear assertion, that this briefing paper was ever shown to anyone but the reporter. The whole section is of limited value, and I think it should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

- :It's not back again is it? There have already been two fairly long and time-consuming debates about this and the general thrust of the argument in favour of including it is something along the lines of "Look! It's on Frontpagemag.com!". We have a policy against relying on partisan websites as sources, and besides all we have here is one writer (on a partisan website) claiming that he has seen a policy paper that was prepared in the Pentagon. We don't know how reliable he is (apart from what we can surmise from his being published on a very right-wing political website and not in a reputable media outlet), and we don't have an idea what the document (let's assume it existed) really was: an official briefing paper that no-one but him has ever heard of, or a draft drawn up by some over-excited junior officer and that was killed by said officer's superior. The source is not adequate to let us make any judgement on this and certainly not adequate to attribute these views to "the Pentagon". Palmiro | Talk 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushers keep trying to censor, cut it out. Readers can make up their own minds based on the source, that's WHY WE SOURCE THINGS.Extc

Wikipedia has rules about sources, we don't just put it there an let people decide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia --Urthogie 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules for sources are clear, Frontpagemagazine is a news source and has a history of reporters receiving governmental leaked information. Whether a POV-pusher wants to try to make claims they refuse to back up or not, the source is valid. Extc

The guidelines for sources are indeed clear and this story doesn't make the grade. Frontpagemagazine doesn't pass the test because it is an unabashedly partisan website, Sperry is a guy with an obvious agenda, he makes an extraordinary claim and there is no secondary source. --Lee Hunter 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You CAN use the source for something like

Critics of Islamism claim that _________________[7]

All I'm saying is that you can't indiscriminately paste large chunks of content. It has to be helpful towards the article, in showing viewpoints rather than just pasting chunks of them when you could just provide a link. Make sense? Please don't revert back to your version till we're done discussing this, and thanks for discussing this Extc!--Urthogie 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And aside from the questions about the sources, the actual quote is not specific to the topic of this article which is "Islamist Terrorism". In fact, it doesn't address terrorism at all. Even if the sourcing was better it would be more appropriate for an article on western attitudes towards Islam or on militant Islam itself. --Lee Hunter 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you're correct. I'm completely against this quote being used, upon reading it again, with this in mind.--Urthogie 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Organisations" section

This section used start off logically enough (but how accurately is a different question) by saying something along the lines that the MB in Egypt and Hizbullah were the two first major Islamist terrorist org's designated as such by the US.

Now we have a structure which doesn;t make much sense at all. It starts with HA, which is probably the most controversial organisation to be designated as "terrorist" - the designation is pretty much universally disputed in the Middle East outside Israel (by Christians as well as Muslims for what that's worth). It would probably make more sense to start with the Egyptian extremist groups of the late 70s / early 80s (the so-called Takfir wa Hijra and the like), the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, move on to Palestinian groups, then deal with Lebanon, Afghanistan, Algeria and finally with al-Qaeda and the current crop of extremist groups. That would allow us to discuss all the main players in more or less sensible (and roughly chronological) order.

The current version as it stands just mentions three groups (Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaeda), which seems to reflect a purely Western view of it. Also, there are lots of organisations whose designation as "terrorist' is rather less controversial than in the first two of those cases, and accordingly should be dealt with - although the controversies over whether Hamas and Hizbullah (in their different ways) are or were terrorists does of course deserve to be discussed here. Palmiro | Talk 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood actually a terrorist group? Reading the article History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, this seems debatable. What about groups in other parts of the world - Chechnya, Phillipines, Kashmir etc? --Lee Hunter 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, if you disagree with this western bias, please add Islamist terrorist organizations not already included. Also, something being controversial doesn't mean it's not NPOV, so it makes sense that the most newsworthy organizations should be mentioned first. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you anywhere there in principal, but some remarks. First of all the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. I don't think anyone denies that they were responsible for a large number of attacks which would fit into most definitions of terrorism - perhaps, as that article claims, not for all of the ones they were blamed for by the government, but still for an awful lot. Secondly, on an international level, Hamas and al-Qaeda are probably rather more newsworthy then Hezbollah, and the Algerian Islamists were in their day if anything more so. Thirdly, it doesn't make much sense to give the most prominent place to a disputed example, which in fact no major Lebanese political players (to the best of my knowledge) consider to be terrorist. Of course this question should be mentioned, but it means it's not a very good example of an Islamist terrorist organisation. Fourthly, insofar as Hezbollah is newsworthy at the moment, it's not for terrorist activities but for its role in internal Lebanese politics and its armed activities on the Israeli border. Fourthly, I think it makes sense to deal with things in roughly chronological order, to show the development of "terrorist" activities by Islamist organisations; there's also an argument to be made for dealing with them region by region or in order of prominence, but we don't have any of those at the moment. Fifthly... no, wait, that'll do for the moment! Palmiro | Talk 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust that you'll make excellent additions as long as they're sourced. You know more than me about the Muslim Brotherhood, so I'll just fine tune any edits concerning it.--Urthogie 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I trust that you'll make excellent additions as long as they're sourced. You know more than me about the Muslim Brotherhood, so I'll just fine tune any edits concerning it.--Urthogie 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

'Claim' vs 'say'

I thought my edits of 'claim' to 'say' had been lost in a revert; I didn't realize you specifically wanted them that way. My rational for avoiding 'claim' is based on these suggestions, and some discussion here. I think it's an improvement, but I'm open to discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Words to avoid:

Dubious use:

• "Physicists claim that electricity is made up of so-called electrons"
• "Einstein supposedly invented relativity"
• "Pink Floyd's music is purportedly high quality"
• "Britain was America's so-called poodle in the Iraq conflict"

Acceptable use:

• "George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks" (actual citation)
• "According to the Boston Times, the govenor is purported to have said X" (actual citation)
• "This glow, the so-called Smith effect, was first noticed by Y" (introducing a new term)
• "Allegations of election fraud were never proven" (an actual specific and documented allegation is being discussed)

As you can see, acceptable use is for cases where it is not beyond reasonable scientific doubt. A rational mind could disagree with any of the claims made by Pro-Islamists and Anti-Islamists in the article, hence its best to uniformly treat their opinions as claims.

From Wikipedia:Words to avoid:

Section 2.5 Point out, note, observe, insist, maintain that, protest [synonyms for "say"]

Editors sometimes create bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say."

"Point out" was one of the things I reverted. Also, please note that claim and argue aren't on this list, and for good reason— they aren't synonymous with say. They have different meanings and connotations which lead to a more neutral voice in the case of statements within the realm of reasonable doubt(this includes statements by pro-islamists and anti-islamists). Thanks, --Urthogie 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that works for me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

citing the sources

anyone planning on citing the requested sources?--Urthogie 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I usually allow a week or ten days for someone to give a citation. That's not a rule or anything, but some people only edit on weekends, etc. and I like to give everyone a chance for input. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting I would delete it, I was just wondering if anybody was planning on doing certain ones at some point.--Urthogie 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

EU and Hezbollah

It's a terrorist organization. From Hezbollah: "On March 10, 2005 the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (473 in favor 33 against) on a resolution branding Hezbollah in whole as a terrorist organization. The resolution stated that the "Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them"[9]. The EU has also decided to block Hezbollah's Al-Manar television from European satellites in order to enforce European regulations against "incitement to racial and/or religious hatred". [10]"

Got it?Extc

Okay. Now you go and read up on the political structures of the European Union, and come back when you know what you're talking about. Palmiro | Talk 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Takfir

I was trying, in my edits here, to get across the rather significant point that "takfir" is a significant concept in extremist Islamist ideology. It forms a sort of dividing line between the extremists and more mainstream Islamic thought, and the "takfir" of Muslims for what are essentially political reasons is a hallmark of the extremist groups that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims. However, Hamas and Hezbollah do not fall into this extremist category. I think the subsequent edits have rather lost this idea, in particular I see that Hamas and Hezbolah are gone (though perhaps the idea wasn't expressed very well in the beginning). Palmiro | Talk 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of concealed intentions

I'm removing the following bit because it doesn't seem to say anything about terrorism (except to criticize terrorist actions) nor does it reflect the header of "allegations of concealed intentions". Unfortunately the link to the article is dead so I can't tell if there was anything more there. --Lee Hunter 00:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

According to The Australian, "the message the fundamentalist clerics are delivering to their supporters—mostly in Arabic—is in dramatic contrast to their public statements": [8]

Last month, Sheik Zoud told about 400 followers in Arabic: "God grant victory to the mujaheddin in Kashmir and Chechnya, and Palestine and Afghanistan." Sheik Zoud, head of the Sydney arm of the Melbourne-based organisation Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaah declared: "Inshallah (God willing), dark days will descend upon America soon."

But during a newspaper interview last year, Sheik Zoud said: "I'm against all terrorism over the world. I'm against all terrorists who kill civilian people.

"Let the Australian people relax. Why everyone make the Australian people scared from the Muslims?

Clearly this speaks directly to allegations of concealing intentions. It's a common charge that leaders, websites, newscasts, etc. say one thing in Arabic and another in English. Coverage of this should be included. But, absent a working reference for this report, or a link to another relevent report, there is no basis for keeping this in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that it's relevant enough. On the other hand, if this link doesn't work it's no good, and I also dislike the way it appears to mock the person's poor English, which is hardly what one would expect from a serious quotable-in-an-encyclopedia article. Palmiro | Talk 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Concealing intentions? Intentions of what? Supporting the mujaheddin in Kashmir etc is not advocacy of terrorism. These are largely insurgencies against military forces. The hope for "dark days descending on America" does sound sinister but it could mean anything. The fact that he talks this up to an Arabic crowd and not to the English audience does not indicate that he has "concealed intentions" (whatever that's supposed to mean) just that he's playing to his audience. --Lee Hunter 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the section header but not the content, and mark it as a stub. Future additions must be sourced with links that aren't dead. --Urthogie 12:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But what's the point of having a head without a body? It's a peculiar and awkward heading to begin with. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. The material isn't missing, just moved to their pay "archive" section. That is likely why the original writer quoted it. It also has bearing on the status, as terrorist groups gain sanctuary from other muslims. Queeran

But again I draw your attention to the actual quote. The speaker was NOT talking about terrorists, he was talking about "the mujaheddin in Kashmir and Chechnya, and Palestine and Afghanistan." In other words, about insurgencies against largely military forces. If he said something like "we should fly more planes into skyscrapers and blow up schools" it would have some relevance to the subject of this article but he didn't. So why include it in this article? And what's up with the vague "intentions" in the heading "Allegations of concealed intentions"? Where does he indicate, even obliquely, that he intends anything? The only thing that can be understood from the quote is that he talks about militant insurgencies to a Muslim crowd but not to the non-Muslim media. --Lee Hunter 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it does sound quite menacing, and how do we know he was only talking about the "good", military-opposing mujahedin in those places as opposed to the "bad", blowing-people-up-in-shopping-centres-and-taking-schoolchildren-hostage mujahedin? I agree that on your points it's not a great example, but on the other hand what I know of militant Islamists suggests to me that they are more likely to be supporting Hamas than the DFLP, for example... Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LeeHunter is right. The two quotations do not conflict. If anyone really thinks they do, I can elaborate. Because of this, I am not sure where the actual evidence of concealing is in this excerpt. I am not opposed to providing evidence of concealing intentions, but it should be something substantial (I know, that is not easy). I agree that situations like Palestine involve terrorist groups, but there are a whole head of hairs to split there and we can't do that in this article. The issue of Palestine is not about terrorism and who exactly the mujahedin are that the Sheik cites are also not clear. We cannot put words in his mouth. And yes, the networks of association and support are wide and deep. But again, that's far too complex to get into it here. Also, the Sheik may not know as much as we do about these situations or even receive the same information. Thus, it is difficult to say we are talking to the same specifics. The issue of Palestine (among others) is big and multifaceted - not everyone is a terrorist and not everyone is freedom fighter, as it were.

However, this excerpt is a good example of how jihad is applied in the context of major political conflicts, which explains why the rhetoric of individuals like Osama bin Laden can be effective. Note, that does not mean these conflicts (e.g. Chechnya) are about terrorism, only that bin Laden can compare his terrorism to these conflicts and thereby gain credibility (in theory). It's a very effective use of the bandwagon fallacy. This also works on Westerners, who hear this bin Laden and read about this Shiek, assuming that they might be on the same side. bin Laden has used this tactic in regards to orthodox Islam as well, but frankly I think his message resonates because of his ties to Afghanistan and the experience of Muslims in various territorial/sovereignty disputes around the world. He, and all Islamists, have really found a way to exploit perceptions here. Regardless, let's avoid this error. --Vector4F 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I would have liked to have said, had I thought more carefully about the matter. Thank you for summing the issue up so well. Palmiro | Talk 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Islamic terrorism

Whether or not its offensive or politically incorrect is addressed in the article. The fact is that news sources, and most people refer to it as Islamic terrorism. This can be proven by a search for both terms in quotes on news.google.com, a site which carries news from all over the world, including arab news. Also, a search on a lexis nexis gives wildly more results for Islamic terrorism as well. Any opinions before I do this?--Urthogie 12:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not move. Major factual problems. BYT 14:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that it's offensive, it's actually incorrect. We don't have a page called Christian terrorism that would list all acts of terrorism carried out by Christians, whatever the motivation. - ulayiti (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't removing the bit about the distrinction between 'Islamist' and 'Islamic' in the article. This was dicussed above [9] and consensus was to keep it like that. - ulayiti (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a certain irony in the fact that you claimed a blue link doesn't exist? Read the article before hoping for it not to exist. QED.--Urthogie 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I think I said, 'We don't have a page called Christian terrorism that would list all acts of terrorism carried out by Christians, whatever the motivation.' That's true, isn't it? - ulayiti (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please notice that the thing is you reverted presents a one-sided defense, without including the opinion of those who support the term. You've been proven incorrect on both issues, so I'm reverting this again.--Urthogie 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're free to add the 'other opinion'. You don't solve problems with POV in articles by deleting all the content. And just so you know, reverts should not be used like that. - ulayiti (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally unwarranted excision of material. Please check the long history of this article to see why a) "Islamic terrorism" is offensive, inaccurate, and unencyclopedic and why b) your removal of the explanation of the distinction of the two terms is unwarranted. BYT 14:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Christian terrorism has its own article, Islamic terrorism should have its own. I'd like you to explain the double standard. Thank you.--Urthogie 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Huh?" sounds a little facetious to me, and I don't think it's a great way to start a dialogue. I'm not working on Christian terrorism. I'm working on this article, and the distinction between Islamic and Islamist has been a major point of discussion here for some time.

There is no consensus to move this article, and no consensus to delete the material you want removed from the piece. BYT 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic and Islamist are not the same thing. Please read those articles so that you'll know the difference. Christian terrorism talks about terrorism that is carried out with Christian motives. It's a completely different concept. - ulayiti (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, first off I think the move is obvious, regardless of the article's content. Doing otherwise is a double standard. ISLAMIC TERRORISM IS A REDIRECT! It eliminates any chance for there NOT to be a double standard Now, lemme address the issue of content:

The term Islamic terrorism is used more commonly, especially in Western media, but some believe it to be a smear against Islam.

This is a one-sided presentation of the word. It should just say its contentious in the intro paragraph, and explain both sides in the section. Also, this sentance uses weasel words which it shouldn't.

Some journalists and politicians use the terms "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" interchangeably, but this use is contentious; many Muslims do not accept that attacks on civilians can ever be justified by Islam. From this perspective, describing terrorism as "Islamic" is seen as insensitive, uneducated or even a slur against Islam. Although "Islamic terrorism" is commonly used by Western media to describe terror activities of a wide variety of groups, "Islamist terrorism" is perhaps a more accurate term that respects the sensitivities of Muslims in that it refers specifically to the ideology of Islamism and not to the entire religion of Islam.

"Many Muslims do not accept that attacks on civillians...can be justified" is like assuming that the western press thinks that Islam justifies it. That kind of puts the debate over word usage into the wrong frame. Also, please notice how by reverting this, you have made it present only one view! I think you have to consider the problems with this.

The term Islamist, though often used generically for any political or militant group that uses Islam as an identity or ideology, is used by experts in a specific meaning when there is no other substitute for the word. Recently, the Western media have adopted the phrases "Islamists", "Islamic militants", and others, to refer to this.

This is unsourced, and most likely untrue. Very important that we remove this paragraph as the western media clearly prefers Islamic terrorism as the phrase.

Thanks!--Urthogie 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) P.S: All Islamist terrorism is based on a certain interpretation of Islam.

THanks--Urthogie 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with POV in the article, feel free to add the opposing POV, but don't delete content just because it presents a point of view you don't agree with. WP:NPOV does not mean removing everything that's potentially biased, but rather adding the opposite points of view as well. - ulayiti (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean have view 1 says a view b says b. It means presenting both arguments and then comparing them to neutral facts. This isn't just a polite debate page, it's an article.--Urthogie 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

True, and what you're doing is removing arguments of one side completely. - ulayiti (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Islamic terrorism doesn't refer to all terrorism by muslims. It refers to what you would call "Islamist terrorism" for crazies like Bin laden, etc. Christian terrorism refers to what you guys would call Christianist terrorism, it's not all the terrorism done by christians. I'm sorry if a word offends you, but for the good of the encyclopedia, please recognize that you can address word use in the article itself. Hear me out on this? Somewhat?--Urthogie 14:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

'Islamic' refers to 'Islamist'? Er, no. - ulayiti (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying "er, no" proves nothing but your unwillingness to consider alternate views of this debate. Please back up your negation, or expect it to be ignored.--Urthogie 14:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the articles. 'Islamic' and 'Islamist' are not the same thing. - ulayiti (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Islamists are terrorists. Virtually all terrorists (who self-identify as) Muslim are Islamists. Yes, this information is important. No, you can't steamroller it out of the article. BYT 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "Christian terrorism is terrorism that the perpetrator claims is performed in furtherance of Christian goals or teachings;" The emphasis is mine.

User:Ulayiti's comment that "Christian terrorism talks about terrorism that is carried out with Christian motives. It's a completely different concept" is offensive. It seems to imply that Christian terrorism is somehow different from Muslim terrorism. It's as offensive as if I were to say that "Muslim terrorism talks about terrorism that is carried out with Islamic motives." In each case the terrorism is carried out by a few who misuse religion as their motive and justification.

Islamic terrorism redirects here, to an article named Islamist terrorism partly in deference to others' sensibilities. It would be nice if that consideration were reciprocated. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend anyone with that - perhaps I should have phrased it 'allegedly Christian motives' or something like that. - ulayiti (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; Yes, that is quite correct. The motives of terrorists who cite Christianity as their justification are as false as the motives of terrorists who cite Islam. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to a move, not because of "offense" but on accuracy grounds and also a presumption against page moves. Andjam 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)