Terrorism or Islamism?

The millions of open and public debates across the world over the modern phenomenon of Islamist attacks share a common thread of argument.

One side argues: We need to understand the relationship between the attacks and Islam.

The respondents argue: These attacks have nothing to do with Islam, or "true" Islam.

In every debate where Muslims are present, this defence is consistent: the problem is not Islam or Muslims, but something, anything else, but especially: Western interference, racism, crazy non-Muslim Muslims, mind-altering drugs, gun laws, wrong perceptions of Islam, the Muslim-offending victims who provoke an attack, the minority of such attacks, the weather.

Instead of the debate progressing through defining the problem toward establishing solutions, we're still stuck at debating the definition of the problem.

Therefore, debate does not progress, because it is stopped at the accusation that those identifying Islam as the problem or part of it become themselves the discussion for debate. Anti-Muslim debaters are vilified as racist, intolerant, misguided, immoral and themselves accused of offending 1.5 billion Muslims.

Muslims in the debate want to end the debate before it starts.

This is understandable.

"Good" Muslims are unwilling to have their wonderful religion blamed for atrocities.

If we agree that the murders are caused by a version of Islam, then all Muslims feel victimised and accompliced. Their wonderful belief system is the problem. They feel attacked in debate.

Calling proponents Racist is illogical. Islam is not a Race, it is a belief. Race cannot be chosen. Belief is a choice.

So, calling people racists for arguing that Muslims or Islam is the problem, is not using the term Racist consistently with common usage, as is the case calling a banana an apple.

Islamaphobe is a worse term of which to accuse someone.

A phobia is a psychological disorder that prevents sufferers from carrying out their activities of daily living. A phobia is debilitating to a person's daily life.

So, accusations of Islamaphobia are falacious.

So, the goal of Muslim apologists is to stop the debate, or censor it, to protect the belief system they hold most dearly. It is an ego survival tactic. They use political correctness and laws against vilification to defend their apology and simultaneously stop the debate from investigating the role of Islam.

This is nuts.

Murderers claiming to be Muslim, practising Islam, claiming the tenets of Islam to justify their murder of civilians, shouting Allahu Akbar during their attack, claiming the purpose of their attack is a Muslim jihadi campaign against non-Muslims to replace global society with a Mulsim caliphate, are judged as acting with no relation to Islam. Really?

In public debate, is our goal to preserve people's feelings, or to fight for the truth?

Who today has the courage to call out the inconvenient truths?

How can society address the issues threatening the peace and peace of mind of us all, if we can only debate those things that won't offend or upset people?

The term Terrorist Attack is a euphamism. What people are thinking when they use the term is Islamist Attack, or Attacks by Muslims.

Bertrand Russell once said, the pursuit of precision destroys certainty. In the same sense, the pursuit of truth destroys political correctness.

And vice versa.