British Tory leader David Cameron states the terms ‘Islamic’ and ‘Islamist’ should not be connected to terrorism. I agree, but they undoubtedly are.
Cameron states using those terms to describe terrorism “[helps] do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.”
How would describing a terrorist act that was carried out in the name of Allah confirm that terrorist act was in accordance with Islam?
I’m not the only one confused by Cameron’s logic. Melanie Phillips is also confused.
Panther6170 - 
Tom Killebrew - 
Emm Bayoumi - 
lyndsey -
Not only is it our foreign policy, domestic surveillance programs, or cartoonists that cause liberty-loving peaceful muslims to suddenly metamorphasize into bloodthirsty terrorists; but simply reciting what the terrorists themselves already say will do it too?
Whats with these “impressionable young Muslim men” that make them so impressionable, compared to the countless young infidel men throughout the world who are walking targets for terrorists, as well as victims of vitriolic hate speech constantly being spewed from muftis and mosques throughout the muslim world? It sounds like David Cameron doesn’t think to highly of these “impressionable young Muslim men” and their ability to control themselves the way the infidels do. Who is the real Islamophobe?
Comment by Jimmy the Dhimmi — Monday, May 14, 2007 @ 4:54 pm UTC