1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"suicide hijackers"

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Spie, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    In tonight's Channel 4 news there was a piece about the commencement of building on the World Trade Centre site in New York. The newcaster referred to the "destruction of the World Trade Centre by suicide hijackers".

    As we all know the WTC was destroyed with terrible loss of life by terrorists - muslim terrorists to be precise. This atrocity was committed in the name of the Islamic religion by cold blooded murderers who thought they had a divine right to take innocent lives to further their religious goals.

    When this terrible incident happened the perpetrators were referred to as "Islamic extremists" or "Islamic terrorists" for some time. It was an accurate and relevant description of the murderers. So why now has any reference to their religion and motive been removed? Is it just another example of our nauseous obsession with not causing offence to minorities?
     
  2. SpicyDuck

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 10, 2003

    Posts: 6,349

    I personally think they shouldn't be talked about over the media or any such way, least of all as "Islamics" as not only does it promote their religion but it puts genuine muslims in a bad place in society's like our own.

    I don't think it's about not causing offence to minorities, to be honest. I feel it's just a more accurate representation of who they were exactly. They were just simply mindless suicide hijackers and murderers.

    At the same time, I have sympathy for the people who did it. I feel sorry for them having to end their life in a way that obviously meant they were brainwashed and/or mentally unstable.

    So, in conclusion, suicide hijackers is just a way of representing a harsher and more accurate truth. In my opinion. I kinda went off topic there, but my point has been made and the question answered. :)

    Phil.
     
  3. benjo plz.

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 15, 2004

    Posts: 14,208

    Location: Hall

    Yes, if continuously used by the media, create a stereotype that all Islamics are terrorists.
     
  4. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: Jan 26, 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    'Suicide hijackers' is just as accurate a term as 'Islamic terrorists' - in fact it may be better, because it tells you two things that the latter doesn't - namely that they were kamikaze attacks, and that they were hijackers. 'Terrorists' is a more general term applied to anyone who commits acts of terror... or more precisely, to anyone that the US government accuses of committing acts of terror ;). In any case, the events of the last few years can't have left anyone in doubt that those responsible for the September 11 attacks were Muslims.

    Overtone's point about carelessness is also important - most Muslims aren't terrorists, and so the press should avoid creating the false image that they are. If the press feel that there was a danger of creating an unfair anti-Muslim sentiment then they might be right to change the words they use.

    Perhaps a more relevant question, though: If nobody is being hurt by it, then why would anybody care?
     
  5. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708


    Prehaps the media became aware of people focussing on their religion rather than their acts?
     
  6. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,899

    Location: Bristol

    I think "destruction of the World Trade Centre by suicide hijackers" is an excellent term - it's accurate, concise and without any baggage - just what good news should be.
     
  7. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 26, 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    "Islamic extremist suicide hijackers" is rather a mouthful. I'd rather refer to the groups the hijackers were a part of as Islamic extremists, their ideology as Islamic extremism or fundamentalist Islamism, and the hijackers themselves as either Islamic terrorists, suicide hijackers, or any one of a few applicable names.

    I really don't think it's in order to not cause offense. I should imagine that, even if they didn't use the specific tag "Islamic extremist suicide hijackers", the programme dealt with the ideology of the attackers and certainly their religion? I didn't watch it, but the idea of a programme dealing with the September 11th attacks that didn't discuss either of those things boggles the mind, so I would presume so.
     
  8. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,975

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    Their religion had everything to do with their act. Their suicide had everything to do with their religion. And it should always remain in focus. Specifics are everything. It wasn't angry troopers that started WWII, it was specifically Nazi German army. It wasn't hostile piromaniacs that bombed Canary Wharf, it was Irish Republican Army. We call those responsible for what they are. In the same way it wasn't just any suicide bombers that flew into twin towers. We make no mistakes about it, we don't call them kamikaze, or flying nuns, or orange dressed budhist ninjas. We call them for they are. If they claimed to do their acts in the name of Hochmut and Demut we would call them Amish Terrorists. If they claimed to do their acts in the name of Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, we would call them the Basque Terrorists. But in this case they were specificially Islamic terrorists.
     
  9. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Calling them either is descriptive - if you want a more accurate background their faith should be mentioned as the act was done in line with the political component of their faith.

    There was no mental illness amongst the hijackers (at least collectively) becasue mentally ill people do not work in unison.

    They were many things, hijackers, Muslims, terrorists, men, adults - the best way to describe them is to provide as much information about them in shortest space... The five rules of journalism are - who, what, why, how and where.

    Who = Terrorists/Muslims
    What = Hijacking/Terrorism
    Why = Islamic nationalism
    How = Hijacking
    Where = New York/Planes

    There is no preferred two-word description that can fit all this information but any description of the event that does not cover all of the above has some glaring basic errors...
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Dont care for deeper analysis then, or background?
    If a someone was raped by by a mentally ill patient who had previously escaped an institution three nights before would you only want to expect news of a person being raped and no other details?
     
  11. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    If the Irish Republican Army burned down Canary Wharf. Would it be as accurate then to say that Christian Terrorists burned down Canary Wharf?

    Islamic terrorists, as a term is the same as saying Christian terrorists. While perhaps truthful, is rather imprecise. Unless you believe that all Muslims are the same and that they all could, in an instant, become a suicide hijacker.
     
  12. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,975

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    No, calling IRA attackers Christian Terrorists instead would be plain stupid, because the fact they were in IRA doesn't make them Christian. Republican. Yes. Irish. Yes. Christian. Not neccessarily. As much as I agree faith was in play the main reason behind IRA was always blind freedom and independence to the entire Irish land, at all cost. And as much as we could put it under dispute - it should and eventually will belong entirely to Irish.

    The people who flew jets into twin towers weren't from the same country, weren't from the same town or school, they weren't inbred in the same family. They didn't do it because they wanted to promote holidays in Middle East, they didn't do it for the pride of their football team. Their only common denominator was islamic fundamentalism for which they trained, fought, attacked U.S and, as far as we know, died. They didn't do it for Osama. They didn't do it for their love to Arab horses, or to promote Afgan boybands. They did it for what they believed was their obligation to their faith. They did it for what they understood as Islam. That's why they are Islamic terrorists. Just like Christian Crusaders or Voodoo Shamans, no mistakes in description, we don't presume crusaders were of pagan faith and we don't suspect fellas killing goats in their basements to be Hare Krishna followers. It doesn't mean Christians are proud of the crusades. It doesn't mean todays Christians should be blamed for crusaders. But we call things what they are - Turkish Horde. British Yobs. Christian Crusades. Islamic Terrorists.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  13. PieEater

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,568

    Location: Devon

    The hijackers were apparently motivated to carry out their actions by a strongly held beleif in their faith, therefore it cannot be wrong to link their religeon with their actions and call them what they were "Islamic terrorists".

    The struggle in Northern Irelaland is based around the religeous differences of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, it is / was not unusaual to hear the BBC reporting of actions carried out by Catholic / Protestant terrorists, because their reason d'etre was religeous.

    I think Spies point is valid, calling a spade a spade is no longer politically correct, lest we offend those spades who aspire to be forks.
     
  14. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,899

    Location: Bristol

    Not when I’ve only get half a dozen words! The story was about the new building – let’s look forward not back. Those issues have been analysed to death over the last few years. I think it's real progress to be able to talk about the new building without going over the whole Islamic terrorist thing again.
     
  15. phykell

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 4,410

    rm
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2007
  16. starscream

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Mar 8, 2003

    Posts: 4,055

    Location: Looking at the internet

    I suppose the thing is that the vast majority of Muslims and their leaders immediately condemned the hijackings and would strongly argue that those things were done in the name of Islam. Given that Muslims would not want to associate with these acts, "Muslim Terrorists" does not give as good account of who they were as other descriptions. "Islam extemists" would be a fair desciption as it implies that while these people were followers of Islam, their beliefs were well outside those of the vast majority, and they only really represent a tiny proportion of Islam followers.

    If you analyse these phrases though, they are telling you different things about the people. "Islamic extremists/terrorists" is telling you what the people were. Suicide Hijackers is telling you what they did and so it could be argued it is a more descriptive phrase.
     
  17. Skyfire

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 28, 2005

    Posts: 768

    Agreed, suicide hijackers is an accurate term :) We would not refer to Christians as Christian terrorists if the roles were reversed? :)
     
  18. v0n

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,975

    Location: The Great Lines Of Defence

    But so does term - "Islamic Terrorist". Why would any peaceful follower of Islam be upset by Islamic Terrorist but not Islamic Extremist? Are there any peaceful, non violent Islamic Terrorists? Of course not. Islamic Terrorist by default means an extreme wing of faith I would have thought.

    Do not worry - Islamic Terrorist will not be mistaken for anything else just because there is "Islamic" in the name. As the words "Islamic" and "Terrorist" are spoken I assure you there is a single person in western world that pictures a typical sunni Poplar Council voter, it's automatically assigned to a mental picture of masked nutjob shouting on the top of his lungs a stuttering rap to a violent, arhytmic stacatto of AK47 in semi automatic mode pointed to the sky while his mates try to dance pogo on burning foreign flag.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2006
  19. starscream

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Mar 8, 2003

    Posts: 4,055

    Location: Looking at the internet

    Well I didn't say that they would be offended necesarily. I said that the term "Islamic Terrorists" is not a descriptive as "Islamic Extremists". Part of the problem is the word "Terrorist" is beginning to lose all meaning as it now seems to apply to anyone who doesn't send the US a card at Xmas.
     
  20. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    But they DID do it for Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and his version of Islamic belief. Much as it is a form of Islam, it is as specific to bin Laden and some others who follow that way of thinking as the IRA's Catholicism is relevant to their way of thinking.

    One of the traps about discussing Islam and the Muslim world is that its own dogma declaring heretical an admission that there is more than one form of it. But the fact remains that there are many different ones although the vast majority are Sunni sect muslims. But among the Sunni there are a number of different subsects or schools.

    The only people we help by continuously painting all Muslims as one Islamic movement are those extremists among them who aim to make what is happening today into a war between all of Islam and all of the West (well, mainly America and its supporters).

    All this talk about they are Islamic and it doesn't matter which version is just playing into those self same extremists hands.