Having heard a few terms for the Middle Eastern militants I am becoming irritated by the media here in calling these terrorists ISIS or IS or Islamic State. They do not behave in an Islamic manner and they most certainly are NOT a State.
Would it be too much to ask the broadcasting media to refer to this terrorist group as "UnIslamic NonState"

If I were to raise a public signatory list to back this suggestion, where and how would I do it and who should I petition.
Your thoughts please.

Happens all the time: Ulster loyalist paramilitaries were not being loyal, the "strength through joy" Nazi movement had a strange concept of joyousness. The recent referrendum in my part of the world almost resulted in a win for Scottish Independence, not "non-UK-Dependence". The European Crusaders were not exactly behaving with Christian spirit and yet going on Crusade was described as "taking the cross".

The name always reflects an organisation's aspirations not its antithesis.

The current bunch are fighting to establish a separate state, ruled by strict interpretation of certain tennets of the Islamic faith. I'd say "Islamic State" is an apt name.

I know where you're coming from Andy. I guess you feel "Islamic State" tarnishes all muslims with the religious maniac brush but fortunately we live in a free society where muslims can, and do, condemn terrorism. If enough muslims do that, and do it strongly enough (non muslims can't as the terrorists automatically dismiss their views as irrelevent simply because they are not muslim) then IS/ISIS/ISIL will give up won't they?

They call themselves Islamic state. Their justification is Islamic ideology

But maybe you should go and tell them why they are wrong, correct them on their understanding of the Quran and the hadiths and explain to them and the many, many thousands of supporters how they've completely misunderstood the nature of their own religion and of Jihad.

The world is changing rapidly before our eyes and our inability to understand even the basics of theological differences within the Islamic world severely compromises us. For instance, Alan Henning was a very good man who wanted to help others, and may even have continued to do so, but he was sadly, blissfully unaware of his status as an infidel in relation to IS. It cost him his life, and all the letters and pleading on humanitarian grounds meant absolutely nothing, nor was it ever going to. If he had understood his status under IS, he may still have gone but he would have done so with eyes wide-open or he may have gone to Turkey and left aid distribution to Muslims in the area.

You can't build a car by throwing the engine in the boot, calling it a car and expecting it to work. You have to look at the manual to find out where the bits go and how they all relate to the whole, in the same way you can't say something is unislamic if you've only a vague notion of what that means, or what you think it should mean.

This is a clip from a CNN interview. Do you think you could convince this boy that he is wrong, because he stands for so many who have been beguiled by IS. It helps no one to say it's unislamic, unless you can challenge such indoctrination with theological understanding and reasoning why it is wrong, which of course is the real problem here. How do you stop young men and women being radicalised when the call to Jihad carries more theological weight than any alternative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx-duzk6fhc

Sorry to be hard on you Andy, it's not personal, it's just sometimes the common consensus is totally flawed even if the intentions behind it are very good. It's not anybody's fault, we all want social harmony and to live together in peace, but IS are presenting something new to the world—a fundamentalist vision of Islam without tolerance. Of course not all Muslims will subscribe to this vision, and many will be horrified by it, but a sizeable number will also be drawn to it because they will see it as uncorrupted by western values, and a return to more glorious times of a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

'Extremist fannies' should be the Western recognised name for them. Something really derogative.

whatever they are called, it feels like a lot of political grandstanding and very little action is being done to stop them. I can't help feel that Kobane (and ankar in Iraq) are watershed moments in history.

Prevent IS from taking Kobane and deal them a major blow while galvanising opposition. Lose Kobane and watch the movement grow and become more powerful. I fear the latter seems inevitable based on latest reports and turkeys infuriatingly stubborn stance.

It was better when Saddam was in control of Iraq and Assad had full control in Syria.
Meddling and trying to impose democracy in countries like that just doesn't work.

whatever they are called, it feels like a lot of political grandstanding and very little action is being done to stop them. I can't help feel that Kobane (and ankar in Iraq) are watershed moments in history.

Prevent IS from taking Kobane and deal them a major blow while galvanising opposition. Lose Kobane and watch the movement grow and become more powerful. I fear the latter seems inevitable based on latest reports and turkeys infuriatingly stubborn stance.

Yes, I agree. If we're serious about stopping IS it needs to be done now to stop further momentum. However, aside from a show of strength Turkey are unlikely to get involved because along with Qatar they've been instrumental in creating and supporting ISIS as an instrument to fight both the Assad regime in Syria and the Kurdish PKK, as such, they are unlikely to help Kurdish forces defend Kobani or allow Kurdish reinforcements in to bolster Kobani's defences.

Thanks for the replies.

t_green, your youtube clip, not a chance of persuading the brainwashed kid. Poor lad could be "de-programmed" I suppose but that is time and money, it ain't going to happen.

Still can't see why the British / Western World media can't address them as UnIslamic NonState.

I still haven't worked out why it irritates me so much, but it bledy does.

Saying they are not following Islam is incorrect, they are following the raw desert 7th century version of Islam which very few follow today.

They are Islamic (not a state obviously) but extremely unrepresentative of the vast majority of the world's Muslims.

I see the Muslim community in the UK raised a large sum of money for Alan Henning in a fantastic effort. Truly breaks my heart to see heroes like him slaughtered, an innocent, good man with a family.

It was better when Saddam was in control of Iraq and Assad had full control in Syria.
Meddling and trying to impose democracy in countries like that just doesn't work.

Can't argue with your second sentence but your first is a bit of a problem for me.

So is it OK for them to gas their own people? A conundrum I know, but something had to be done.

The define their state as Iraq and Levante so I think their 'official' title is ISIL. They do not have an unopposed territory in much the same way as Palastine does not but, ignoring my own views, I guess they have as much right to call themselves ISIL as Palastine does to call itself Palastine. I beleive that Kurds refer to northern Iraq and parts of southern Turkey as Kurdistan yet that is not internationally recognised as a state in its own right.

Hiss Hiss??

This is a Q and A discourse between an Islamic State recruiter and Spiegel Online which gives tremendous insight into IS motivation, and their perspective on other Muslims. If you really, genuinely, what to know what makes IS tick you really should read this.

I make no apologies that it's from JW because that's where these things appear on my radar. It also shouldn't stop anyone from reading this and weighing up their own conclusions, acknowledging that truth sometimes springs from unwelcome sources

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/islam ... -the-world