Howard Dean: Paris attackers not ‘Muslim terrorists’

[kpete]

Dean, speaking Wednesday on MSNBC, argued that they should be treated as "mass murderers" instead.

"I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am," he said. "I mean, they have no respect for anybody else's life, that's not what the Koran says. And, you know Europe has an enormous radical problem. ... I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it's a cult."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/08/howard-dean-paris-attackers-not-muslim-terrorists/?cmpid=cmty_plus_fn

[randys1]

1. If they are Muslim terrorists than arent all white christian racists also terrorists?

There are tens of millions of white, christian racists/bigots/homophobes/xenophobes here in america, are they terrorists?

Based on what we have seen I think so...

I know I have called them terrorists repeatedly...

So either they all are or none are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. If they organize and commit mayhem in the name of religion they are./NT

[randys1]

3. Lindsay Graham is alleging we are in a holy war, so I call him a terrorist...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I can call my dog a bird and respectfully she still won't fly.

If Lindsay seeks and finds other like minded people who harm, maim, and kill innocent people to advance a political , religious, or ideological agenda he is a terrorist.

[randys1]

6. the American govt, including under Obama (and that saddens me) has acted in ways that others

would consider terrorism by an empire for 50 years.

Especially in the Middle East.

We dont get to decide who is and is not a terrorist.

[kpete]

7. unfortunately

and with great sadness

I must admit -
randys1
you are correct


peace (i never give up),
kp

[AlbertCat]

50. But they aren't doing it (officially) in the name of some religion.

Just saying'


Ignoring the Muslim part of this and other terrorist attacks is as stupid as ignoring the Christian part of abortion bombers and murderers.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. Longer than 50 years by far.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Correct. The terrorists define themselves.

If a group of Jews organized and started blowing up churches because they believe Christians worship a heretic they would be Jewish terrorists.

Or if a group of conservatives organized and started killing famous liberal because they believe them to be threats they would be conservative terrorists.

...

[pangaia]

22. Lindsay "...

DOES in fact ".... seek(s) and find(s) other like minded people who harm, maim, and kill innocent people to advance a political , religious, or ideological agenda..."

Through his speech and his votes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. By that loose definition Barack Obama is a terrorist as is every member of Congress./NT

[NuclearDem]

8. Terrorism has a definition.

And while Graham's holy war nonsense is despicable, it doesn't meet that definition.

[randys1]

9. So if we drone someone or invade Iraq, that is war, not terrorism...I see, do you think that

distinction matters to the people we kill?

[NuclearDem]

12. No, you clearly fucking don't.

Don't ascribe positions to me that I don't fucking hold.

Graham believing we're in a holy war is not terrorism.

[randys1]

14. Lindsay Graham is promoting an attitude that can result in war, you can say it matters what the

word used is, i say it doesnt matter.

Terrorism and war and death are all the same to me...and Lindsay is promoting it...again

[NuclearDem]

16. Well tanfastic for you.

Doesn't change the fact that terrorism has a definition and it in no way includes your example.

Words have definitions, and that they don't fit your worldview is not their problem.

[randys1]

17. What a bunch of god damn bullshit

You are going to sit there and say that since your word "war" is better than my word "terrorism" that lindsay then has some fucking moral high ground, well at least he isnt a terrorist?

BULLSHIT


I am done here..

[NuclearDem]

19. No, he doesn't have the moral high ground.

Drone attacks against civilians and the illegal invasion of Iraq are war crimes, not terrorism.

Words have definitions, and misusing them makes us all look stupid.

[candelista]

37. "Words have definitions"?

Well here's the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence to inspire fear. The US committed plenty of that in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. So the US is a terrorist state.

[NuclearDem]

62. Using an unbelievably broad definition, sure.

Make a term broad enough and you can include anyone you want.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

And yes, plenty of CIA actions would fall under this definition.

[candelista]

70. That statute conveniently defines state terrorism out of existence.

So Hiroshima, for example, would not qualify as an act of terrorism under this definition. Keep drinking the state/media sponsored Koolaid. It seems to be to your taste.

[840high]

30. ...^ that

[madokie]

5. You got it Howard

[oberliner]

13. Should we avoid using "Christian" to describe the Westboro Baptist folks?

I ask the question in earnest.

[branford]

15. When did Howard Dean become an expert on political or religious Islam?

Did he become an acknowledged and respected Imam when I wasn't paying attention, whereby he could pontificate on who is or is not a "real Muslim?"

The line that Muslim terrorists aren't truly "Muslim" is just plain stupid and illogical to most people. If the attacker claimed to Muslim, no less actively and openly practiced the faith, then committed crimes in the name of their religion in order affect political outcomes, they are, by definition, "Muslim terrorists." It would be no different if a devout Christian killed an abortion doctor under the guise of his religion, he too would be a "Christian terrorist."

However, the important distinction is that just because some members of a faith commit terrible acts in the name of the faith, it does not necessarily follow that all members of such faith are terrorists. This is basic logic.

When you are forced to attempt to change basic language and logic because of inconvenient facts (i.e., there are sadly a disproportionate number of terrorist "mass murderers" who follow Islam and commit violence in its name), it just reinforces and emphasizes the political weakness of your original point.

[hughee99]

24. I think that's second year of med school, but if not

I'm sure his time in Vermont gave him exposure to the huge Muslim community there.

[karynnj]

33. There is a Muslim community in Burlington - the city he lives in

Burlington has been a city which has accepted refugees from many cultures. The public school is FAR more diverse than the NJ community I lived in. Now, it is not NYC, but the comment is pretty wrong.

Not to mention, his point is the same as one made by various US imams - that it is not their faith that inspires these actions. In fact, one of the killers spoke of the Abu Gharib photos motivating him to become a radical. That is political, ideological or even nationalist - more than a religious impetus.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Killing a bunch of Jewish deli patrons seems religiously motivated to me./NT

[hughee99]

52. It is now, I don't believe this was so much the case

When he was in governor from 91 to the end of 2002.

[karynnj]

66. He lives there NOW -- and the statement was made recently

Not to mention, Burlington's role as a place where refugees were welcome started in the 1990s. By the way - he lived in the Burlington area as Governor. The Governor has no mansion in Montpelier.

[m-lekktor]

18. oh for fuck sake. how pathetic.

the denial is sickening and unhelpful. you can call them what they actually are without blaming the whole muslim community. they did this because of their religion why deny it? "we have avenged the Prophet Mohammed" isn't something some secular generic terrorist would shout after the deed for fuck sake. and choosing a JEWISH grocery store to attack is ALSO due to their religious views it wasnt chosen randomly!

[pangaia]

23. Dean is absolutely right, althought perhaps

he thinks he is right for different reasons that I think he is right.

These killers are not Muslims any more than members of the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians.
In fact, a great, great, almost uncountable majority of people who call themselves Christians or Muslims are neither.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. What criterion do you use to determine who is a Jew, who is a Christian, who is a Muslim, et cetera

I will patiently await your answer.


Thank you in advance.

[karynnj]

38. Wrong question

There is no doubt that they are Muslim. The point is that it is not the religious teachings that he may or may not have been taught and lived that led to this action.

Here, it may be a complex mess - including a feeling of second class standing, anger over what they see as western attacks on Islamic countries, such as Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. Obviously they identified with people the west was attacking. The only known comment on what radicalized one of them was the Abu Ghraib photos. Arguing that it is motivated by religion ignores that it could be anything from nationalism, economics or ideology.

[pangaia]

57. Since you choose to be snide,

I assume you do not really have any interest in what I may reply.
Therefore, I won't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I'm not being snide. I just wouldn't be presumptuous enough tell someone they are not of a religion

I'm not being snide. I just wouldn't be presumptuous enough tell someone they are not of a religion I don't think they are because they don't meet my definition of what being part of that religion entails.

[Desert805]

76. It's shocking to me that this

needs to be explained to people.

[brooklynite]

45. Westboro Baptist Church isn't Christian?

Point to an position they take that is inconsistent with Christian scripture (however inconvenient it might be to other Christians)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. The killers were muslims, just like the Westborough baptists are Christians.

And I like sugar on my porridge.

[pangaia]

60. That's fine.

We can agree to disagree.

I don't use sugar, either.

[Rhinodawg]

73. Sadly the killers were muslims.

Islam seems to be the only religion that will kill you for not appreciating it

- and then claim that you're the one with the phobia.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Absolutely not true.

What *is* true is that the fraction of Muslims who believe in promoting their religion by force is significantly higher than for any other religion.

When your discussing issues like this, it's *vital* to be careful with one's words - there's sometimes a thin line between truth and bigotry, and it's one I think you're, at best, skating perilously close to.

[840high]

31. Yes.

[joshcryer]

79. Dean is re-framing.

That's what he does best.

[Rhinodawg]

20. Amazing...everyone is missing the point.

It not about what we believe that they are or are not acting for Islam....

Its that THEY BELIEVE they are acting for Islam.

[greyl]

21. Ecumenical bullshit. nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

26. NRA: Mass shooters not "real gun owners"

Operation Rescue: Clinic bombers/shooters "not representative"
Christians: Westboro Who? Prop What?
Police: Just a few "bad apples"
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Do we accept all of these? At what point to we get to admit that immersion in a violent, dogmatic ideology might maybe, possibly be at least a minor contributing factor?

[TwilightGardener]

28. Oh Christ almighty. Stop telling me that what I see isn't what I actually see.

Of course they're Muslims, and it's Muslim-based violence. Let's stop fucking pretending. The Islamic world has a fucking serious problem--it's constant and ongoing, around the world. If Christians were routinely threatening and killing people for mocking Jesus, or for not following religious laws to the letter, or for being non-believers, we wouldn't tie ourselves in knots trying to pump up Christianity as something awesome and peaceful and try to separate it from those acts. We'd say, "The Christian faith seems to have a serious fucking problem, maybe they all ought to get their shit together and change some things." What is the Islamic world changing, what are they doing to rectify the situation, in the wake of 20 years of violent nuttery? I see the usual lip service and warnings not to indulge in "anti-Islamic sentiment".

[zappaman]

29. +1 n/t

[840high]

32. +100

[Throd]

34. +12

[Rhinodawg]

49. You cant blame an entire....

forget it.

[branford]

55. And no one is . . .

It's not difficult to acknowledge that certain terrorists are in fact Muslims who carry out their atrocities in the name of Islam AND that all Muslims are not terrorists.

However, claiming that the terrorists in France connected to the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher Supermarket attacks were not Muslims, despite the more than ample evidence to the contrary, because you fear some may impute their motivations to all Muslims. is just intellectually dishonest, lazy and foolish. It's also quite odd to watch liberals and progressives like Howard Dean and John Kerry proclaim who is or is not a member of any religion. What exactly are their theological credentials?

[lame54]

61. it's not like we put bible verses on the bombs we drop on them...

Oh wait - we do
and it's not like our last president called it a crusade
oh wait - he did
religion is often used as a rallying cry

[SunSeeker]

36. This is the same guy who was against the "Ground Zero Mosque."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/687049

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Is it fair to say that the Klan was a domestic and Christian terrorist organization?

I say without a reservation, yes !

[PeaceNikki]

40. Are those in the Saudi government 'not real Muslims', too, Dr. Dean? They seem to be setting a tone

This is going on right now.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/05/07/world/middleeast/07reuters-saudi-activist-sentence.html?referrer=

DUBAI — A court in Saudi Arabia has sentenced the editor of an Internet forum he founded to discuss the role of religion in the conservative Islamic kingdom to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes, Saudi media reported on Wednesday.

...

In a separate ruling on Tuesday, the court also convicted the administrator of a website on charges of supporting Internet forums hostile to the state and which promoted demonstrations, Sabq reported on Wednesday. It said he was sentenced to six years in jail and a 50,000 riyal fine.

...
Also in April, a Saudi court sentenced an unidentified activist to six years in jail on charges including taking part in illegal demonstrations and organizing women's protests.

Another was sentenced to three years in jail for spreading lies against King Abdullah and inciting the public against him.

This is the exact same ideology that spawned the attacks in Paris. Denying the involvement of the ideology is ridiculous and dangerous. The idea that disrespecting Islam is a crime worthy of death is certainly not universally held by all (or likely even most) Muslims but it's a FAR fucking cry from completely unique.

[Lobo27]

41. I'll ask it again why are liberals so scared to say anything bad about Islam.

Is it because we only ever deal with Christians here in the states?

Based on threads I've seen here many DU members have no issue saying Christians suck. But when it comes to Islam we have to show restrain.

Like the other day, we should respect Islam and their values. I countered lets do the same with Christianity, you know like respect that they believe being gay is a sin. Not one good answer.

[smirkymonkey]

42. +1000

You and me both. I find it puzzling when the religion is so against everything that liberals stand for.

[uppityperson]

44. I am equal opportunity, all Fundamentalists suck, regardless of creed, color, gender, politics, etc.

I guess knowing people of many different religious beliefs helps me understand there are really good people in all of them, and assholes. So I decry the assholes while respecting the ones who deserve, who have earned, my respect.

[sabrina 1]

69. Why do you think 'liberals are scared to say anything bad about Islam'? And btw, why do you

ask that as if you are not a liberal? I assume you are, and you don't seem to have any trouble with it?

But let me explain what Liberals won't do. They will not engage in bigotry. They WILL blame fanatics for their murderous rqmpages both here and everywhere else.

Liberals don't blame innocent people for the actions of a few. That is called 'bigotry'.

The brother of the murdered cop who himself was Muslim, has stated that those fanatics are not Muslims, that his brother was. He is angry at the loss of his brother and even more angry that his are calling themselves Muslims.

Many Christians in this country opposed Bush's 'Crusade' into Iraq and felt the same way about Bush's claim his war was justified by his Christian god.

Fanatics exist in every group, religious and non-religious and if every time one of them goes and murders innocent people the knee jerk reaction is 'they are all the same', we are no better than the Right when it comes to labeling entire groups of people for the actions of a few.

Liberals don't do that, I hope that answers your question. It's a dangerous thing to do, which recent history should have taught people.

Already in France due to this bigoted response from the Right, retaliations on innocent Muslims have begun. Far Right bigots just waiting for an opportunity are being provided that by ignorant knee jerk reactions blaming all Muslims for the brutal crimes of those fanatics.

Liberals remember history and do not want to be a part of this. They want the CRIMINALS dealt with, NOT innocent people.

I can't believe there are people HERE on a Liberal forum who don't already understand that innocent people should NOT be blamed for the actions of criminals.

Are all Democrats mass killers because of mass murderer, John Wayne Gacey? Some Right Wingers have actually used that sicko to denigrate all Democrats.

[Lobo27]

71. We can debate the subject for eternity, in my opinion.

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I do consider myself a liberal, but I also point out things that I see as wrong. Here on DU last year Catholics took a beating to the point some DU members left the forums. There were constant threads bashing Catholics with high amounts of reps.

I know you can not fight bigotry with bigotry. I guess I'm wanting to point out that perhaps its easier to point out one group because that is the group we deal with here in the states?

[sabrina 1]

72. And anyone who does that, attacks all Catholics for the actions of a few, is also bigoted.

I get that you think because some on DU are more likely to attack Christians than Muslims, all Liberals act the same way. But that is not true. I find the attacks on all Christians to be as reprehensible as those on all Muslims. Maybe more should speak up when it happens. But responding to bigotry with more bigotry won't help at all imo.

[Egnever]

78. Wow well said!

[Hoyt]

80. One reason is they know it will encourage the haters and war mongers.

[MisterP]

43. what, discussion about what people actually believe?! real analysis?! outrageous!

next he'll bring up their condemnation by imams and Muslims in general!

(but seriously who'd have thought that nihilism would make a comeback as a problem after a century?)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I believe Dr. Dean was an internist....

But I have known several psychiatrists who wouldn't presume to know what another person believes better than they do.

[Gothmog]

46. Dr. Dean is correct

[DavidDvorkin]

48. They're not true Scotsmen, either.

[branford]

56. Heh! nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. Right-wingers want this to become a holy war.

[KoKo]

54. +1

[Renew Deal]

67. That's what I think some of this liberal guilt is about

We're afraid of acting like Cheney so we overreact the other way.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. Actually, the SMART way to go it to recognize the trrorists are ALSO right-wingers....

We should throw our right-wingers against their right-wingers on pay-per-view.

Leave the rest of us out of it.

[BeyondGeography]

53. Good luck with that...Yes, they were

They were also jive Muslims, as Howard points out.

I understand the impulse to absolve the majority of Muslims, but there's a way to do it without going overboard and gift-wrapping quotes for anti-Muslim extremists. Howard's leading with his chin here.

[lame54]

59. big fucking cop out Dean

[JI7]

63. they are muslim, although i do think ISIS is more of a criminal gang but Al Qaeda really does

have religious/political/social goals .

if you look at al qaeda they are more focused and it is about offense against their religion . they are also willing to put in the time to carry out more sophisticated attacks.

but i think ISIS just loves to kill people and it's more about money for them . they steal property, rape, hope to get huge ransoms with their kidnapping.

[former9thward]

65. I love how people who are not Muslim proclaim who and who isn't Muslim.

And they are expert in what the Koran means. The terrorists in France are terrorists who killed in the name of their religion, Islam. Anything else is a cover up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

75. That means the attack on the Jewish market in Paris was workplace violence in his opinion. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. Dean is a cool guy but I don't always expect him to make sense

Here he's making none and talking through his ass. They are about as Muslim as he is? So rabid fundamentalist Muslims throughout the world who want to impose sharia law, who don't want women to vote, drive, or go to school and who engage in barbaric punishment of crimes including Wahabis are not Muslims? They certainly think they are and they're willing to commit mass murder and suicide for it. Howard Dean is the one who decides who is Muslim and who is not, so he can define as Muslim only shiny, happy people holding hands for purposes of hyper political correctness and to eliminate any discouraging word about Islam?