Saying "Islamic State" is a lot like saying "The United States of Westboro Baptist".

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/saying-islamic-state-is-a-lot-like-saying-the-united-states-of-westboro-baptist/

Really, c’mon, those terrorist f***wits haven’t yet created a state for themselves, let alone all Moslems; so to use that name gives them a legitimacy they haven’t earned, and insults any Islamic state that actually does exist. It grants the appearance of legitimacy to a load of fringe-dwelling crazies with delusions of grandeur.

It’s like pretending that the inbred loons of the Phelps clan represent all of America.

It’s like calling this teeny tiny little blog “The Über Blog”.

It’s like calling a single rabid, mangy, syphilitic Chihuahua “The Dog”.

Just stop calling them something they don’t deserve, OK? “ISIS” and “ISIL” are bad enough without going the full delusional Monty.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

1. I agree.

I think the president should use a different term during his address to the U.N. today!

[riqster]

2. As should we all, and the media especially.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

3. Referring to them by what they "want to be," instead of what they are

seems ridiculous to me.

[riqster]

4. And to me.

[GummyBearz]

5. I agree

Lets keep it as PC as possible. How about the "NAISIL" where the NA stands for "NotAll". That way its like belittling them and also NAISIL sounds like nasal kind of... where boogers come from. Great ideas here that should fix the problem

[riqster]

8. PC, schmeecee. It's simply a way of not enabling their propaganda.

Same reason I never once called Gee Dubya Bush "President".

When we use titles that are not earned, it cheapens the title and falsely ennobles the recipient.

[Bragi]

6. A few differences...

Unlike ISIL, the Westboro Baptists don't have a significant following outside their own living rooms.

Unlike ISIL, the Westboro Baptists don't militarily occupy large swaths of territory, and entire cities and provinces.

Unlike ISIL, the Westboro Baptists haven't created 2 or 3 million refugees now exiled outside their country.

Unlike ISIL, the Westboro Baptists don't behead people with whom they disagree, or call on others to do so.

I could go on. My point is that it is a poor analogy you make between ISIL and Westboro Baptists.

I think Americans should try to understand the situation with ISIL as it actually is, without trying to draw parallels with known US groups that are so very different from ISIL, and don't actually make much sense.

[riqster]

9. The point is not enabling aggrandizing behavior to the benefit of the undeserving.

Iran IS an Islamic state, like them or not. They had a revolution, set up a government, and have created an actual state run largely by Islamic law.

These puds in ISIL are trying to, in the words of the Bushies, "catapult the propaganda". I feel we should not play chorus.

[cali]

7. I think your comparison is off.

ISIS may not have created a state, but they have managed something approximating one. They control territory with millions of people. They establish laws. They tax. They control schools, police departments, etc.

Westboro controls the lives of absolutely no one. They have no territory. In terms of power- and that's what you're discussing- there is no comparison.

And I don't see the name conferring legitimacy. I do think the hold they have is tenuous. They aren't recognized by any other state, and I agree that they're delusional.