I can understand not wanting to use "War on Terror", it's a wee bit of a misnomer me thinks.

Sounds okay to me, if perhaps a bit pointless.  Refering to them as "anti-Islamic" is akin to calling them bad Muslims, which should ruffle a few feathers.

 

It's a good thing we are not using the "War on Terror" line, as it is a blatant non-truth, and makes no sense.  You can't wage a war on a means of waging a war. 

What about GWOT doesn't make sense to a people who have no problem conducting Anti-Anti-Islamic operations?

anti-Islamic means not only will you not admit that you are at war with what breeds terrorists, but you won't even admit that what breeds terrorists has anything to do with Islam...in fact...you're sure it has nothing to do with Islam.

Seems fairly accurate to me.

If you  want to label them Islamic bandits, that just subsets them as to the particular superstition that they use to justify their banditry..

Herald

I'll agree, it's all rather pointless, and extremists is what they are, they are taking their particular beleifs to the extreme and using it as justification [akin to the crusades really]. I'm not one to fall into the nonsense that is considered 'PC', it's a crock of we all know what that I don't see making any difference [as some one previously pointed out like the progression from n[fill in the missing letters]r, to negro, to black, to africa american, to coloured... it's done nothing]. In fact if anything, I only see the application of 'political correctness' as dividing further.

it has a great point....

calling them islamic extremists "recognises" that they are islamic just at the edge...

if you cut them off from this and call them anti islamic then it serves to marginalise them from the vast base of Islam and potray that they are just a bunch of nutjobs who are not acting for the best of the religion and only serve to harm it.

 

say this enough times and it will sink in with the majority further than it has already has and will weaken the terrorist support base. even if it only works with a few it is still worth doing as it costs us nothing.

 

Paul

the "Irish troubles" had catholic terrorists on one side and protestant terrorists on the other but you wouldn't say that christianity bred them would you???? rather the social upbringing perverted views on the religion which basically has both sides breaking their own religious rulings... hence they were not extremists but actually anti christian....  this slightly tongue in cheek...

 

Islam is still an evolving religion but is is 600 years behind christianity on the maturity stakes. look at what christianilty was doing in the name of god back in the 1400-1600s against its own people never mind the earlier period....

 

by all means slap the bad ones but don't tar them all with the same brush less you say the same for christians.... or you could call all mono religions for it.....    :-)

 

Paul

 

 

I get the concept... but it's funny...They have to keep the Islamic identity, because that's what these terrorists are, only they're anti-what they are.....and the Brits are against it.

lets face it.... most "islamic" terrorists are not exactly stable, rational people.... whether on their own mertit or by indoctronation....
sure the Spanish Inquisition (cue monty python) thought theat they were good christians.....

but the more they are portrayed as anti islamic and not just anti west/USA the more likely their support will reduce....

 

Paul