Why The Change In Discription?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286746/Four-Islamic-terrorists-planned-attack-British-soil-guns-home-bombs.html

/// Four Islamic terrorists planned attack on British soil with guns and home-made bombs ///

Recently I have noticed that the Daily Mail has ceased referring to terrorists as 'Muslim Terrorists' and now call them 'Islamic Terrorists'.

Is this tactic to be been seen as less offensive to the Muslim communities?

The Guardian however play especially safe by not mentioning their faith whatsoever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/01/four-discussing-terror-attack-uk

Whereas the Telegraph have choosen to call them "Four British al-Qaeda inspired fanatics"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9903497/Four-British-al-Qaeda-inspired-fanatics-face-jail-after-admitting-terror-plot.html

[sp1814]

LazyGun

Yes - I see your point (and it's very well explained)...and in the phrase 'Muslim terrorist', is constructed with two nouns, which (I believe) is grammatically different to 'Islamic terrorist' which is formed by an adjective which describes the following noun.

You're right!

Yes..,you're 100% right.

[FredPuli43]

Christian bomber crews in WW2 were not bombing in the name of their religion, aog.

How is saying that someone who is Christian and blows up a load of children offensive to Christian bomber crews in WW2 ?

[THECORBYLOON]

Does Islamic terrorism not suggest it is a method or conduct supported by followers of that faith whereas a Muslim terrorist is one who is a Muslim and a terrorist?

[sp1814]

THECORBYLOON

Ah, but in this case, if you are describing the terrorist, you would use the term 'Muslim', because that's what he or she is.

If you replace terrorist with 'doctor', 'dentist' or 'school teacher', then the adjective 'Islamic' would sound a bit clumsy.

However, I suspect most casual readers wouldn't notice the difference between 'Islamic terrorist' and 'Muslim terrorist'.

Certainly not enough to be offended by one and not the other...

[Zeuhl]

/By that remark, which I find most offensive, seeing that it makes all Christian Bomber Crews during WW2, nothing more than Christian terrorists./

aog why do you think WW2 bomber crews (christian or otherwise) were 'terrorists'?

It's true that most of the Allied and German crews would have been Christians but I think it is inappropriate to label them 'terrorists' as you have done.

Admittedly they killed a lot of civilians but the Luftwaffe were largely aiming (with a few noteable exceptions such as Coventry) for military or infrastructure targets.

And although the allied crews were deliberately targeting civilian targets when they carpet bombed German cities, that was a strategy intended to bring a quicker end to the war.

It is the action that defines a 'terrorist' regardless of any religion the perpetrator might adhere to and I am shocked that you of all people who is supposed to have been in the RAF once upon a time, should equate bomber crews with terrorists.

[THECORBYLOON]

SP that is what I am on about, an Islamic doctor suggests he/she is carrying out the duties of a doctor according to the practices of the Islamic faith, whilst a Muslim doctor is a doctor who happens to be a Muslim.

[boxtops]

well put corbyloon, I agree with that - and an Islamist is (these days) an extremist

[emmie]

i would dispute the targets for the Luftwaffe, but you know that is not the question. I don't care what they call them, bstards will do, and to see a group of Muslim men expounding their Islamic ideology right near one of the targets for the 7/7 bombings didn't fill me with glee earlier today. Perhaps it doesn't mean anything to them, but strangely it did to me

[emmie]

for anyone interested this is where the bombs dropped in the capital. It wasn't just for strategic purposes. Seeing as where our family lived was virtually flattened.
I know Naomi looked up the area where she was born, lived...

http://bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900

[Zeuhl]

Fair enough em

but I still think that aog equating the bomber crews of the Luftwaffe and the RAF to 'terrorists' is inappropriate.

[emmie]

i confess i didn't see that, and i wouldn't agree, they were not terrorists.

[emmie]

for what it's worth, though i hate war and all the carnage that ensues, what the Luftaffe did was beyond comprehension, seeing as how they must have known that the British and allied forces would retaliate in kind. It was a bad move in many ways on their part, i truly think that if anything the blitz on London provoked a spirit in Londoners that wasn't there before, they won't break our spirits, it wasn't just rhetoric from the likes of Churchill...
Our part of the capital certainly took a bashing. Luckily no family members were killed, which was a minor miracle, seeing as how the street we lived in ended up as a pile of rubble...

[THECORBYLOON]

Zeul, anotheoldgit did NOT say the WWIIi bombers were terrorists. It was in response to Ludwig saying,

"The term Islamist is a fairly new one, used to describe someone who's inspired by Islam ito do various things that don't necessarily correspond to it's teachings - typically acts of terrorism.

It's like calling someone a 'Christian-ist' terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist on the grounds that they can't accurately be described as a Christian having just blown up a load of children."

anotheoldgit said, "By that remark, which I find most offensive, seeing that it makes all Christian Bomber Crews during WW2, nothing more than Christian terrorists." he clearly does not believe it correct to call them terrorists but then again, neither did Ludwig

[THECORBYLOON]

Soz Zeuhl, missed the "h" out.

[Gromit]

Take this other example of a terrorist from the Daily Mail...

// An unemployed man appeared in court yesterday charged with possessing a hoard of bomb-making equipment.
Neil Lewington, 43, who was arrested last weekend at Lowestoft railway station in Suffolk, was also said to have had a Nazi-themed book containing information about terrorism.
He appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court accused of ten offences against the Terrorism Act and one against the Explosives Act. //

The man's ethnicity is not mentioned at all. Nor his religious beliefs. Nor his country of origin.

[ludwig]

// By that remark, which I find most offensive, seeing that it makes all Christian Bomber Crews during WW2, nothing more than Christian terrorists. //

It's a fair point actually, but don't shoot the messenger, think about the question for yourself (maybe it's a separate question in it's own right for R&S). Can you really call yourself a Christian if you've just deliberately bombed a civilian target?

[ludwig]

Just for clarity, I'm not saying bomber crews are terrorists - that's a msinterpretation of yours aog. What I'm saying is they probably can't accurately describe themselves as Christians.

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

Thank you very much for putting the reference I made regarding WW2 Bomber crews, on it's correct footing, I couldn't have explained it better myself.

But then some on this site are past masters at turning one's words into something much more sinister, so as to try and create a much different image of that person.

[sp1814]

AOG

Any comment on whether there is a difference between the terms 'Muslim terrorist' and 'Islamic terrorist'?

Or are you not really interested?

[Zeuhl]

"By that remark, which I find most offensive, seeing that it makes all Christian Bomber Crews during WW2, nothing more than Christian terrorists."

/he clearly does not believe it correct to call them terrorists but then again, neither did Ludwig/

corbyloon

I see you found aog's comment as confusing as i did.

Can you explain why ludwig's remark about the terms 'Christian-ist' or Christian terrorist had any bearing on any groups of Christians, least of all WW2 bomber crews.

And why would anyone (least of all someone who claims to be ex-RAF) pick on RAF bomber crews when seeking even a hypothetical example of a 'Christian terrorist'

Very odd.