Grumpy
Quote: Similalry if a succession of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims can't we call them Muslim terrorists?
No. We can't. The point is grumpy, that such people that commit such atrocities are
not muslims. How can they be when they believe what is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of the faith? They do not represent the faith when they engage in such crimes. When someone of a Christian or Jewish background commits a horrendous crime, does faith come into it at all? No. It does not. In the media lime-light would your read or hear the phrase..."christian terrorist does this...jewish terrorist massacres palestinian innocents" etc? Hardly. It does not matter whether one be a muslim, christian, hindu, jew or whatever. It is the crime that matters and the person, themself, that matters. Not their faith. By attaching "muslim" to the word "terrorist" we create an oxymoron. It is a paradox. It does not make sense in the same way that "cold fire" does not make sense. We have become so used to seeing such phrases in the media that we fail to acknowledge such simple facts. Conclusively, the phrase or term is incorrect and highly inaccruate. We should refrain from using the language in such a way. Further debate is welcome.
How come the Jewish vote became so popular? Is it because there are Jews in abundance in America or is it because they hold high offices?
I have read numerous academics from top institutions in the States declare that America would benefit more from NOT sponsoring Israel: Israel being a burden to America.
In relation to the UK...why does it tag along to the US policies in favour of Israel? Do we have such a strong Jewish vote here? Indeed the UK suffers from supporting the rogue regime in Israel: the 7/7 attacks by extremists reflect this. So why does the UK follow such policies? Surely, it is in their favour not to.