- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 3,048
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
It isn't about percentages, it's about perception derived from persistent conflation of innocent people with war criminals or terrorists.
The conflation of Muslims with terrorists is pernicious and persistent.
Any conflation of war criminals with Jews is immediately disputed, with accusations of anti-Semitism, which is justified, just as accusations of islamophobia is justified when Muslims are conflated with terrorism, i.e. racism.
Yes. it is racist because you've been conditioned to perceive all Muslims as terrorists, due to: "The conflation of Muslims with terrorists is pernicious and persistent." And there is little attempt by most to dispel this myth. It's allowed to grow and fester. The worst proponents of this myth being Western media who perpetuate the conflation.
You're automatically ignoring all the other terrorists in other parts of the world, because your sources are always from Western media, and the Western nations tend to share the designation of terrorists. Also the main protagonists of Western Nations terrorists tend to be Muslim due to the interference in Middle Eastern countries by the West, many of the struggles emanating from the creation of Israel.
Whereas in other parts of the world, designated terrorists tend to be limited to one country. That's because terrorism is invariably an intranational struggle, not an international struggle.
A more accurate, less emotive descriptor of international and intranational "terrorism" is "asymmetric warfare".
In western language the descriptor "asymmetric warfare" is used to refer to tactics by allies, and the descriptor "terrorist" to refer to tactics of opponents.
For example the French resistance, raids by British commandoes, and the East European partisans would be described as asymmetric warfare, whereas Irish freedom fighters, Wagner Group, etc would be described as terrorists.
