Muslim racism in perspective

The existance of wide spread Islamic terrorism around the world contradicts your claim.
One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter

Just depends on which of the conflict you are on :eusa_angel:

"One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter"

Often and thoughtlessly repeated, this is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

Suppose a Palestinian straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

So there are two reasons to avoid thre saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs. (Of course, I am not suggesting that a noble end justifies terrorist tactics.)
I seriously doubt that a man who has had his wife and children blown to bits and his house totally destroyed is going to stop and ponder your Ivory Tower discourse on whether he is a Freedom Fighter or a terrorist. :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:
One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter

Just depends on which of the conflict you are on :eusa_angel:

"One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter"

Often and thoughtlessly repeated, this is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end.

Suppose a Palestinian straps on an explosive belt and detonates himself in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor. He is objectively a terrorist: he kills and maims noncombatants in furtherance of a political agenda which includes freedom from Israeli occupation. The fact that he is a freedom fighter does not make him any less a terrorist. Freedom is his end, but terror is his means. It is nonsense to say that he is a terrorist to Israelis and their supporters and a freedom fighter to Palestinians and their supporters. He is objectively both. It is not a matter of 'perception' or point of view or which side one is on.

Another Palestinian renounces terrorism and fights for freedom from occupation by the path of negotiation. He is objectively a freedom fighter and objectively no terrorist. A third case might be an Israeli terrorist who blows up a Palestinian hospital or mosque in revenge for Palestinian terrorist attacks. He is objectively a terrorist but objectively not a freedom fighter.

So there are two reasons to avoid thre saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The first is that it rests on a confusion of means and ends. Describing a combatant as a terrorist, I describe his means not his end; describing a combatant as a freedom fighter, I describe his end not his means. A second reason to avoid the saying is because the saying suggests falsely that there is no fact of the matter as to whether or not a person is a terrorist. There is: a combatant is a terrorist if and only if he employs terror as a tactic in the furtherance of his political goals. It doesn't matter what his goal or end is. It might be the noble one of freedom from oppression. Or it might be base one of domination and exploitation. What makes him a terrorist is the means he employs. (Of course, I am not suggesting that a noble end justifies terrorist tactics.)
I serious doubt that a man who has had his wife and children blown to bits and his house totally destroyed is going to stop and ponder your Ivory Tower discourse on whether he is a Freedom Fighter or a terrorist. :cuckoo:

While he may not take the time to ponder it, it doesnt mean it isnt true, and it IS true. You gave that cop out answer because you can find a reasonable counter debate for it.
 
mmkay, we have two things muslims have recently brought to the table:

1. Intolerance
2. Freedom fighters aka terrorists
 
Gunnen4u
I didn't deny the existence of racism within the Muslims, what I denied was the accusation that Islam is racist.
Yes, currently, there are divisions based on race, ethnicity, tribe, nation, and what have you but that doesn't mean that Islam is racist. It means simply that some Muslims are racists who are blinded by their own prejudice. They should read the Quran and become better Muslims.

Well put. The same can be said of any religious group.
 
First of all, how do you know that the geologist and the Islamic Sheikh were not correct in their statement that Mecca's longitude was in perfect alignment to the magnetic north and would make for a better GMT?

Secondly, please back up your statement that hundreds of millions of Muslims have failed to read the Quran.

Thank You
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top