Terrorist or Muslim Jihadi Islamist?

Everyone can and does use humour to achieve a desired outcome.

But a comedian uses the tool of humour to acheive the desired outcome they define as their purpose for being a comedian. A comedian is called by us a comedian because of the predominant use of their tool, humour.

Everyone can and does use the tool of painting to make art.

An artist uses media, like paint, and is called an artist because they use media, like paint, to acheive their artistic outcome, a painting.

So, everyone can use terror to acheive a state of terror.

But it is predominantly Muslim jihadi Islamists who use terror.

Beheadings, shootings, car bombs, flying planes into buildings, blowing up children, strapping bombs to women, cutting out the clitoris of young girls, marrying little girls off to old men, hiding in hospitals and schools for a shield, throwing acid in women's faces, stoning women and men to death, targeting innocent civilians, running people over on footpaths... what is more worthy of the term "terror"?

No other interest group, ideology, religion, ethnicity, political party, no individual uses such a thorough suite of terror like the Mulsim jihadi Islamist.

A mere description of an attack draws everyone's conclusion that it must be a Muslim nut-job.

So why do we name them after their tool?

We don't call other actors a name from a tool they use to achieve their outcome.

We don't call surgeons cutters, or plumbers pipists or spannerists.

So why call Muslims who murder the innocent in the name of their version of Islam, terrorists?

It's inconsistent.

If we were consistent with the terror makes a terrorist, we'd be tied to calling a comedian a jokist or laughist, words that don't exist, an artist a media-ist or paintist, and so on.

If we were consistent with a paint makes an artist, the food makes a Chef de Cuisine, then we'd say the terror makes a Muslim jihadi Islamist.

A builder uses a hammer to acheive their outcome, but we don't call them Hammerists.

So why do we call Muslim jihadi Islamists "Terrorists"?

Two reasons:

1. HISTORICAL USE

Firstly, it's a term already used by us, way before Islamists exploded onto the scene.

The IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers and many other groups were lumped together because the scenario played out by the event, the attack, the explosion, and only later did we find out who was doing it.

A bomb goes off out of nowhere, with no obvious attacker, or an anonymous attacker.

The event took centre stage and was the first thing named. The party who deployed the attack is only named later.

Humans like to categorise things that are different, but share common qualities and then assign a name to that category.

So, terror was that word. It was the common denominator in all the attacks, a terrifying attack on civilians.

It's an easy step to lump all attackers together into the group of terrorists.

All of this thinking-style was developed by the media, not experts, academics or officials.


2. POLITICALLY CORRECT

Secondly, political correctness:

Not all Muslims are murderers. It is unfair to paint all Muslims with the title terrorist.

Islam as practiced by the vast majority is a religion and lifestyle of peace, compassion, love and social inclusion.

But like anything good, the worst of humans turn it into their own sick, murderous version.

Bertrand Russell advocated that in serious discussion we should always replace names with their descriptions.

So perhaps the name terrorist should be changed to our description of what we mean by terrorist.

The terrorists we are all terrified of are a sick version of the Muslim, following a murderous version of the jihad doctrine in order to achieve a political Islam, locally or globally.

Jihadi Islamist is a better term, if a shortened form is preferred. But if we want to progress on the debate, we need to bite the bullet and say it how it is. The terrorists are Muslim, we can't ignore that fact. No one has the right to tell someone that they are not a Muslim, if they say they are.

However, political correctness is so strong today, the term terrorist will remain as the name for the group committing terror.

The term terrorist is now a politically correct term.

Because the word terrorist is not discriminating, does not identify a sect, an ethnic group, a religion etc, the politicians took it on. The word terrorist and its derivatives is politically correct, safe.


HOW MUCH TERRORISM IS NOT CONDUCTED BY MUSLIM JIHADI ISLAMISTS?

Since 9/11 the word has almost exclusively been used to name attacks committed only by Muslims, and certain Muslims who appeal to the jihadist Islamist ideology. as taught by their founding father and fundamental inspiration, Sayyid Qutub.

Qutub promoted the ideology of the justification ordained by the Islamic teachings of jihad, to the killing of anyone, civilians, children, anyone who was a perceived threat to the Islamic religion and Muslim people.

When 99% of attacks on civilians across the world are committed by Muslims who subscribe to the Qutub jihad, who are Islamists bent on coercing the world into a Muslim world, we should call it what it is.

These attacks are more than terrorism. They are all carried out by people calling themselves Muslim and who state that they commit their terror to defend Islam.

TERRORIST - A WORD THAT COVERS ANY GROUP

Terrorist is a word that covers all groups, all ideologies, not just jihadi Islamists.

But, almost every attack on civilians across the world by a group defined by an ideology, are conducted by a specific group of people, who claim a certain religion and a branch of that religion that attacks for a specific reason.

Almost all the attacks happening across our world on civilians are conducted by members of one religion.

Who sees reports of attacks from Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or even Christians?

Who sees report of attacks on civilians across the globe from interest groups, like Greens, White Supremicists, Bikies, even Communists?

So, what we call them should be just as specific as the attackers. Not generic.

It would only make sense to call these attacks, by Islamists, terrorist attacks, if they were committed by a range of religion and ideology motivated attackers, e.g. Buddhists, Christians, Jews, White Supremicists, Black Power, etc.





It makes no sense calling hundreds of attacks on civilians by Islamists, terrorists.

We can and should be more specific.

The problem for all humans right now is not terrorism, it is Islamism and its jihadi application.