How come the religion of the 'terrorist' is only identified if he is a Muslim?

[Shah]

If the terrorist is not a Muslim, then he is called a loner, mentally unstable, etc. If they are a group, then they are given some other name.
In World War 2, who were the perpetrators of the biggest slaughter in history? The Jews were killed by German Christians. However, they are called Nazis and religion is not associated with them.
What about in Bosnia? The killers were Serbian Christians. They are simply called Serbs.

So only if a Muslim is the criminal, then the religion is identified. On the contrary, if Muslims are the oppressed, then their religion is not mentioned.
In Myanmar, they are Rohingyas.
In China, they are Uighurs.

 

[angrypathan]

Because the rest kill for ideologies that aren't justified using religion. For example, the Christchurch shooter killed out of hatred of Muslims and was influenced by extreme right wing ideology. He didn't claim to do it in the name of the Christian faith. The religion is obviously going to be identified if the perpetrator is shouting religious dialogues and claiming to kill in the name of the religion.

As for the Uighurs and Rohingya, their religions are often mentioned alongside them, although I agree that it should be highlighted more.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Because the rest kill for ideologies that aren't justified using religion. For example, the Christchurch shooter killed out of hatred of Muslims and was influenced by extreme right wing ideology. He didn't claim to do it in the name of the Christian faith. The religion is obviously going to be identified if the perpetrator is shouting religious dialogues and claiming to kill in the name of the religion.

As for the Uighurs and Rohingya, their religions are often mentioned alongside them, although I agree that it should be highlighted more.

When you wreck havoc that terrorizes people, it’s called terrorism.
You can wreck the same exact havoc under any ideology, cause or reason, and it will terrorize the people to the same extent.
Causing havoc IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS *NOT* the only way that terrorizes people.

When an IED device explodes in a public place, people don’t yawn because it was done by a mentally sick loner. People get equally terrorized if it had been done under the guise of religion.

IMO,
A person should be called a terrorist if he terrorizes people REGARDLESS of the cause, reason, his mental condition or his religious affiliation.

 

[Varun]

About time individual Muslim countries throw some others under the bus when these terrorist activities take place.

The recent French killings were by a Tunisian and a Chechen, there was no need for Pakistan to get involved, block its highways and have the potential next-President Marine Le Pen call for a Pakistani-ban.

When such brotherhood is displayed it becomes easy for the rest of the world to paint y'all with the same brush - in this case, your religion is the common denominator. It doesn't happen with the other multi-nation religion, Christianity.

If and when a Pakistani is involved in something sinister, then it's fair game to exhibit all manner of opinions and introspect. These other guys? To hell with them.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

The motive behind the attack.

 

[Itachi]

Because most of the time, the killer themselves brings the Islamic ideology in the picture citing it is in the name of Islam or related with it.

In case of other religion, it's mostly due to being mentally unstable or for personal reasons which has no relationship with religion and hence the religious ideology doesn't get the focus since the killer themselves didn't bring it.

 

[Mamoon]

Because people kill in the name of Islam more so than other religions.

Terrorism is terrorism, but the proportioned of terrorists who have identified themselves as Muslims and called their act jihad cannot be compared to other religions.

 

[faraz39]

Because people kill in the name of Islam more so than other religions.

Terrorism is terrorism, but the proportioned of terrorists who have identified themselves as Muslims and called their act jihad cannot be compared to other religions.

That's because other religions use their state as a way to terrorize others (US, India, and Israel). This happened during colonization (Church backed and supported it as the "white man's burden") and the evangelicals are a driving force behind US foreign policy especially in Middle East.

 

[Mamoon]

That's because other religions use their state as a way to terrorize others (US, India, and Israel). This happened during colonization (Church backed and supported it as the "white man's burden") and the evangelicals are a driving force behind US foreign policy especially in Middle East.

I agree, which is why their religion do not get a bad repo.

As long as most of the organized terrorist organizations in the world identify themselves as Muslims and consider themselves jihadis, Islam will remain associated with terrorism.

 

[angrypathan]

When you wreck havoc that terrorizes people, it’s called terrorism.
You can wreck the same exact havoc under any ideology, cause or reason, and it will terrorize the people to the same extent.
Causing havoc IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS *NOT* the only way that terrorizes people.

When an IED device explodes in a public place, people don’t yawn because it was done by a mentally sick loner. People get equally terrorized if it had been done under the guise of religion.

IMO,
A person should be called a terrorist if he terrorizes people REGARDLESS of the cause, reason, his mental condition or his religious affiliation.

I agree with you, terrorism is terrorism regardless of what the ideology behind it is and it should be called out for what it is. The question by the OP was about why the religion is only identified when the perpetrator is a Muslim, which I answered was due to a twisted interpretation of Islam being the ideology that drives the so called 'Muslim' terrorists. Most of the terrorists of other faith's are driven by ideologies separate to their religion.

 

[Shah]

I agree with you, terrorism is terrorism regardless of what the ideology behind it is and it should be called out for what it is. The question by the OP was about why the religion is only identified when the perpetrator is a Muslim, which I answered was due to a twisted interpretation of Islam being the ideology that drives the so called 'Muslim' terrorists. Most of the terrorists of other faith's are driven by ideologies separate to their religion.

You sure? In the Bosnia war, the Christian Serbs from Serbia actively sought out and killed Bosnian Muslims and not Bosnian Serbs. In think religion was involved as a murder motivation for the Serbs.

Remember the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Here is the wikipedia link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Countless Muslims were massacred by Christian Phalanges while the Jewish Israeli Defence Forces looked on with approval. For sure religion was the only factor involved in this terrorism and extermination.

Christian Germans (call them Nazis if you want) killed millions of Jews because of their Jewish faith. It did not matter if the Jews were old, women, children, doctors, etc.

There are many other examples.

 

[Gilly]

It is classified as terrorism if the act of violence is due to religious beliefs, the terrorist is the one that nominates the reason for his acts. So the best question is why do so many terrorists identify as muslims.

 

[angrypathan]

You sure? In the Bosnia war, the Christian Serbs from Serbia actively sought out and killed Bosnian Muslims and not Bosnian Serbs. In think religion was involved as a murder motivation for the Serbs.

Remember the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Here is the wikipedia link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
Countless Muslims were massacred by Christian Phalanges while the Jewish Israeli Defence Forces looked on with approval. For sure religion was the only factor involved in this terrorism and extermination.

Christian Germans (call them Nazis if you want) killed millions of Jews because of their Jewish faith. It did not matter if the Jews were old, women, children, doctors, etc.

There are many other examples.

Targeting someone because of their faith can of course be terrorism, it can also fall under genocide. However, none of the aggressors you have mentioned claimed to do so under the banner of religion. For example, the Bosnians Muslims were killed for being Muslim, but the Serbian Christians doing the killing did it over political and territorial disputes, not because they claimed it was their religious duty to do so.

 

[Tubs]

Stop playing the victim all the time. Terrorism is religiously or politically motivated. Therefore, white supremacist attacks are generally referred to as terrorist attacks, too. A serial killer may kill more people than a terrorist, but it still isn't terrorism. Both are terrible acts, but with different justifications.

It's also easier to identify the motive of Islamic terror attacks because they usually say 'Allahu Akbar' while perpetrating, or utilise ISIS-style techniques. White nationalist terrorism is on the rise (mainly in the US), and it is being labelled as domestic terrorism. However, the vast number of global terror attacks are Islamic, which is a bigger concern than your perceived inequality in the classification of different attacks.

 

[Manunited18]

It is classified as terrorism if the act of violence is due to religious beliefs, the terrorist is the one that nominates the reason for his acts. So the best question is why do so many terrorists identify as muslims.

According to a Top counter terror policing commissioner, right wing extremists who in general are Christians in beliefs is the fastest growing threat in the UK.

 

[Tubs]

According to a Top counter terror policing commissioner, right wing extremists who in general are Christians in beliefs is the fastest growing threat in the UK.

I agree that it's fastest growing, though I feel the threat of Islamic extremism is still higher, but they don't justify it with their Christian belief. A few terrorists in recent years (in the US) have, such as the abortion clinic bomber, but the main motivation for their attacks is white nationalism. Christian terrorism/oppression is pretty benign compared to what it used to be, let's hope Islam goes the same way very soon.

 

[Manunited18]

I agree that it's fastest growing, though I feel the threat of Islamic extremism is still higher, but they don't justify it with their Christian belief. A few terrorists in recent years (in the US) have, such as the abortion clinic bomber, but the main motivation for their attacks is white nationalism. Christian terrorism/oppression is pretty benign compared to what it used to be, let's hope Islam goes the same way very soon.

Islamic terrorism is benign , it's a minority out of billion or so peacefull muslims who are the culprits.

Then you have the likes a of Alqaeda or isis which is a product of western brutality in their countries which have driven these people insane to a point where these people are mentally so disturbed that there's no turning back , this for me is political.

 

[Tubs]

Islamic terrorism is benign , it's a minority out of billion or so peacefull muslims who are the culprits.

Then you have the likes a of Alqaeda or isis which is a product of western brutality in their countries which have driven these people insane to a point where these people are mentally so disturbed that there's no turning back , this for me is political.

When I called Christian extremism benign, it was because there have been very little to no Christian terrorist attacks in a long time. There are still regular Islamic terrorist attacks, and it's a big issue that even a cartoon would trigger one.

Sure, the West is responsible for some things, but you can't blame it all on them, even most.

 

[Manunited18]

When I called Christian extremism benign, it was because there have been very little to no Christian terrorist attacks in a long time. There are still regular Islamic terrorist attacks, and it's a big issue that even a cartoon would trigger one.

Sure, the West is responsible for some things, but you can't blame it all on them, even most.

Would you live in post western interventions: Iraq, Libya, Syria, afganistan where the countries(correction) rubble that's been left with no quality of life.

I can understand your lack of remorse as Kashmiris are now facing similar prospects from oppressive political dictators

 

[Itachi]

Islamic terrorism is benign , it's a minority out of billion or so peacefull muslims who are the culprits.

Then you have the likes a of Alqaeda or isis which is a product of western brutality in their countries which have driven these people insane to a point where these people are mentally so disturbed that there's no turning back , this for me is political.

Benign is when it is restricted to some localized areas in this context. But Islamic terrorism is spread across the world. It isn't benign anymore.

 

[Manunited18]

Benign is when it is restricted to some localized areas in this context. But Islamic terrorism is spread across the world. It isn't benign anymore.

Like I stated above majority of it like the isis al-Qaeda is political, islam is still if you consider it as the fastest growing religion in the world per followers is the most peaceful per volume of the religion

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

According to a Top counter terror policing commissioner, right wing extremists who in general are Christians in beliefs is the fastest growing threat in the UK.

This is why it is a flawed argument to want religion to be the criteria to judge terror. For non-Muslims they can rightly point to Islamic militancy as a threat, but they inflict their own terror using clever terminology which lets them off the hook. White supremacy gets turned into far right extremism. A neat little feint which does the job nicely.

 

[Tubs]

Would you live in post western interventions: Iraq, Libya, Syria, afganistan where the countries(correction) rubble that's been left with no quality of life.

I can understand your lack of remorse as Kashmiris are now facing similar prospects from oppressive political dictators

No, I wouldn't live there. I also never said that the West were correct for Western intervention (though in many cases, there were collaborating with the armed forces of that nation to topple terrorists, barring Libya and Iraq of course). I don't like Western foreign policy generally, but don't act like Turkey, Saudi Arabia haven't attacked Muslim countries. This isn't a uniquely Western problem, and it's disingenuous to suggest so. If we bring up colonialism, then we have to mention how Arab colonialism made many of these countries Muslim ones in the first place. I have no problem with saying that the West has interfered far too much, however. It's a tricky one, I'm unsure what can be done to rectify their transgressions, and it may be seen as more meddling.

You second point is a complete non-sequitur. Do you think I support Indian oppression in Kashmir? I don't. Ideally, I'd like Kashmir to democratically vote on whether they want independence, to join with Pakistan, or India. Though I would worry about the legitimacy of the vote. It's another tricky one.

 

[Tubs]

This is why it is a flawed argument to want religion to be the criteria to judge terror. For non-Muslims they can rightly point to Islamic militancy as a threat, but they inflict their own terror using clever terminology which lets them off the hook. White supremacy gets turned into far right extremism. A neat little feint which does the job nicely.

It's usually referred to as domestic terrorism, is it not? At least that's what I hear in the left-wing circles I follow, so that's admittedly biased. But as a whole, I feel the consensus would be that white nationalist/far-right extremism is classed as (domestic) terrorism, at least in the US and UK. Other countries which are less equal, and more racist/xenophobic may be more reticent to label it as such.

 

[Manunited18]

No, I wouldn't live there. I also never said that the West were correct for Western intervention (though in many cases, there were collaborating with the armed forces of that nation to topple terrorists, barring Libya and Iraq of course). I don't like Western foreign policy generally, but don't act like Turkey, Saudi Arabia haven't attacked Muslim countries. This isn't a uniquely Western problem, and it's disingenuous to suggest so. If we bring up colonialism, then we have to mention how Arab colonialism made many of these countries Muslim ones in the first place. I have no problem with saying that the West has interfered far too much, however. It's a tricky one, I'm unsure what can be done to rectify their transgressions, and it may be seen as more meddling.

You second point is a complete non-sequitur. Do you think I support Indian oppression in Kashmir? I don't. Ideally, I'd like Kashmir to democratically vote on whether they want independence, to join with Pakistan, or India. Though I would worry about the legitimacy of the vote. It's another tricky one.

We can respect each other's opinions no matter how much we differ.

 

[Manunited18]

This is why it is a flawed argument to want religion to be the criteria to judge terror. For non-Muslims they can rightly point to Islamic militancy as a threat, but they inflict their own terror using clever terminology which lets them off the hook. White supremacy gets turned into far right extremism. A neat little feint which does the job nicely.

Completely agree.

 

[Stewie]

It only happens so due to how the perpetrator identifies or what he identifies as the reason behind his acts.

For instance white supremacists are the main threat of domestic terrorism in the US so when domestic terrorism is mentioned everybody assumes it was a white person with a supremacist agenda who did it.
Same with Islamist radicals. In international terrorism it’s generally assumed they are the responsible party.

Terrorism itself known no class/creed/ethnicity but its the person who commits the act who drags those values through the mud.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It only happens so due to how the perpetrator identifies or what he identifies as the reason behind his acts.

For instance white supremacists are the main threat of domestic terrorism in the US so when domestic terrorism is mentioned everybody assumes it was a white person with a supremacist agenda who did it.
Same with Islamist radicals. In international terrorism it’s generally assumed they are the responsible party.

Terrorism itself known no class/creed/ethnicity but its the person who commits the act who drags those values through the mud.

I disagree somewhat. domestic terrorism has a degree of removal, same as far right does. When you call it Islamic terrorism you associate pictures immediately in your head of a brown person from a foreign country. Domestic almost makes it sound like housework or a pet animal. If you called it white terrorism with a picture next to it of a white person it would have far more visual impact and dog whistle potential.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Here's a great example how using certain language can paint a picture. The article is called Isis brides lining up to return to the UK from yesterday's Times. You see the term waves of Isis brides in the description then read further down to realise it is actually only four women in that wave.

If I'm Johnny Bloggs sitting reading that over a cuppa I'm probably going to be frothing at the mouth at the thought of these waves flooding into our green and pleasant land.

 

[Nadeemp]

Like I stated above majority of it like the isis al-Qaeda is political, islam is still if you consider it as the fastest growing religion in the world per followers is the most peaceful per volume of the religion

Just over the weekend we had the largest funeral in recent memory in Pakistan for a hate preacher .

 

[Nadeemp]

This is why it is a flawed argument to want religion to be the criteria to judge terror. For non-Muslims they can rightly point to Islamic militancy as a threat, but they inflict their own terror using clever terminology which lets them off the hook. White supremacy gets turned into far right extremism. A neat little feint which does the job nicely.

Right wing extremism is on a rise in the USA for sure. However it’s not related to Christianity. White nationalism is. It related to Christianity. I think Richard spencer or jared Taylor the suppose leaders of these movements are atheists.

 

[Nadeemp]

No, I wouldn't live there. I also never said that the West were correct for Western intervention (though in many cases, there were collaborating with the armed forces of that nation to topple terrorists, barring Libya and Iraq of course). I don't like Western foreign policy generally, but don't act like Turkey, Saudi Arabia haven't attacked Muslim countries. This isn't a uniquely Western problem, and it's disingenuous to suggest so. If we bring up colonialism, then we have to mention how Arab colonialism made many of these countries Muslim ones in the first place. I have no problem with saying that the West has interfered far too much, however. It's a tricky one, I'm unsure what can be done to rectify their transgressions, and it may be seen as more meddling.

You second point is a complete non-sequitur. Do you think I support Indian oppression in Kashmir? I don't. Ideally, I'd like Kashmir to democratically vote on whether they want independence, to join with Pakistan, or India. Though I would worry about the legitimacy of the vote. It's another tricky one.

Good post

 

[Manunited18]

Just over the weekend we had the largest funeral in recent memory in Pakistan for a hate preacher .

Can you back your recent statement with proof/evidence, you stated 95% of the population in pakistan are extremists

 

[Nadeemp]

Can you back your recent statement with proof/evidence, you stated 95% of the population in pakistan are extremists

I never made any statements like that

 

[Nadeemp]

You are confusing me with someone else

 

[Technics 1210]

Because people kill in the name of Islam more so than other religions.

Terrorism is terrorism, but the proportioned of terrorists who have identified themselves as Muslims and called their act jihad cannot be compared to other religions.

You are woefully incorrect once again.

You were not conceived let alone born in the 70s/80s when the IRA remapped the UK with terrorism. Look it up. More people have died at the hands of IRA terrorism in the UK compared to Islamic terrorism till date in the UK.

 

[Mamoon]

You are woefully incorrect once again.

You were not conceived let alone born in the 70s/80s when the IRA remapped the UK with terrorism. Look it up. More people have died at the hands of IRA terrorism in the UK compared to Islamic terrorism till date in the UK.

You are making dumb analogies as usual.

IRA did not terrorize the UK in the name of religion. They did in the name of Irish nationalism.

The point of debate is not whether IRA terrorism was worse for the UK or Islamic terrorism.

The point of debate is why the religion of a terrorist is highlighted only when he is a Muslim.

The answer is that because the terrorists themselves use religion as their motivation. When you blow up people in the name of God and call it an act of jihad, Islam will get a bad reputation.

IRA might have killed more UK people than Muslim terrorists, but IRA terrorism did not give Christianity a bad name because it was not holy terrorism.

 

[Technics 1210]

You are making dumb analogies as usual.

IRA did not terrorize the UK in the name of religion. They did in the name of Irish nationalism.

The point of debate is not whether IRA terrorism was worse for the UK or Islamic terrorism.

The point of debate is why the religion of a terrorist is highlighted only when he is a Muslim.

The answer is that because the terrorists themselves use religion as their motivation. When you blow up people in the name of God and call it an act of jihad, Islam will get a bad reputation.

IRA might have killed more UK people than Muslim terrorists, but IRA terrorism did not give Christianity a bad name because it was not holy terrorism.

More nonsense.

Judeo-Christianty ideology has motivated and been responsible for more wars and terrorism in the past 150 years than Islam in its history.

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your claim Islam has produced the most terrorists.

I suggest you stop. The last time you pulled this stunt was when you claimed you were watching the 92WC, and turned out you were 2 years old.

 

[Nadeemp]

You are making dumb analogies as usual.

IRA did not terrorize the UK in the name of religion. They did in the name of Irish nationalism.

The point of debate is not whether IRA terrorism was worse for the UK or Islamic terrorism.

The point of debate is why the religion of a terrorist is highlighted only when he is a Muslim.

The answer is that because the terrorists themselves use religion as their motivation. When you blow up people in the name of God and call it an act of jihad, Islam will get a bad reputation.

IRA might have killed more UK people than Muslim terrorists, but IRA terrorism did not give Christianity a bad name because it was not holy terrorism.

Nicely stated

 

[Nadeemp]

More nonsense.

Judeo-Christianty ideology has motivated and been responsible for more wars and terrorism in the past 150 years than Islam in its history.

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your claim Islam has produced the most terrorists.

I suggest you stop. The last time you pulled this stunt was when you claimed you were watching the 92WC, and turned out you were 2 years old.

U just changed the topic.

 

[Technics 1210]

Only a bufoon like Mamoon would claim IRA didn't have Christian nationalist roots.

He like most of you were not born then! Run along to Google.

 

[Manunited18]

I never made any statements like that

Yes , please accept my apologies

 

[Manunited18]

More nonsense.

Judeo-Christianty ideology has motivated and been responsible for more wars and terrorism in the past 150 years than Islam in its history.

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your claim Islam has produced the most terrorists.

I suggest you stop. The last time you pulled this stunt was when you claimed you were watching the 92WC, and turned out you were 2 years old.

Loooool

 

[Nadeemp]

It’s all good

 

[Stewie]

I disagree somewhat. domestic terrorism has a degree of removal, same as far right does. When you call it Islamic terrorism you associate pictures immediately in your head of a brown person from a foreign country. Domestic almost makes it sound like housework or a pet animal. If you called it white terrorism with a picture next to it of a white person it would have far more visual impact and dog whistle potential.

Yes, but it hasn’t gotten there yet. The way it is, buffoon Islamic terrorists make a lot of noise and make a lot of threats and do a lot of beheadings. So of course as an outside threat, it garners more attention. When other causes start matching that level they will be singled out as well. I mean they flew planes into buildings for eff’s sake.

I think a lot of us are wrongly embroiled in this “oh why are singled out like this” discussion. The whole world won’t be against us if some of us were not that screwed up in the head.

 

[Manunited18]

Just over the weekend we had the largest funeral in recent memory in Pakistan for a hate preacher .

In a tradition brailvee funeral/ gatherings the attendees are looked after in many ways, food and drink is the normal appreciation hosted by leaders of the movement, because of this vasts amount turned up.

 

[Nadeemp]

Loooool

Technics how old are you man. Serious question

 

[Gilly]

The IRA were always referred to as terrorists so its a moot point anyway.

 

[Nadeemp]

In a tradition brailvee funeral/ gatherings the attendees are looked after in many ways, food and drink is the normal appreciation hosted by leaders of the movement, because of this vasts amount turned up.

I would assume biggest reason is not the free food but the ideas and values he stood for.

 

[Stewie]

That’s my point. We adore and idolize these people who preach hate and incite unIslamic violence against others. And then we wonder why does the world think about it this way?

Yes there are injustices in the world and injustices against us like everyone else.. fight them and fight back in a way that is in accordance with our faith and not as cowards blowing crap up and killing innocents. Or don’t fight in the name of Islam.

Unfortunately we have become a center for toxic and poisonous ideology. Only we can fix ourselves from here.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, but it hasn’t gotten there yet. The way it is, buffoon Islamic terrorists make a lot of noise and make a lot of threats and do a lot of beheadings. So of course as an outside threat, it garners more attention. When other causes start matching that level they will be singled out as well. I mean they flew planes into buildings for eff’s sake.

I think a lot of us are wrongly embroiled in this “oh why are singled out like this” discussion. The whole world won’t be against us if some of us were not that screwed up in the head.

By the same token then, don't you think when non-Muslim countries fly planes and bomb dark continents, they will also cause resentment and that fuels the terrorism? Do you think it was wrong for Americans to think "oh why are we singled out" when those planes were flown into the twin towers?

 

[Manunited18]

I would assume biggest reason is not the free food but the ideas and values he stood for.

Assumptions doesn't prove to factual, like i stated my understanding is what I posted in the above post, if their thought process was hate, oppression, then with a Hugh following like that would have pakistan on its knees.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

You are making dumb analogies as usual.

IRA did not terrorize the UK in the name of religion. They did in the name of Irish nationalism.

The point of debate is not whether IRA terrorism was worse for the UK or Islamic terrorism.

The point of debate is why the religion of a terrorist is highlighted only when he is a Muslim.

The answer is that because the terrorists themselves use religion as their motivation. When you blow up people in the name of God and call it an act of jihad, Islam will get a bad reputation.

IRA might have killed more UK people than Muslim terrorists, but IRA terrorism did not give Christianity a bad name because it was not holy terrorism.

That's part of the debate but a bigger question that was asked in the OP was that when a non-Muslim person is involved in terrorist activities, he is NOT labelled as a terrorist to begin with.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

After 9/11 in order to appease the Americans, every country jumped on the bandwagon and grouped all armed groups as terrorists. So it didn't matter if you were a Kashmiri fighting the Indian army, a Palestinian fighting Israeli occupation or legitimate resistance groups you were grouped as a terrorist. Not just non-muslim countries. In order to protect their own interests many Muslim countries justified their own aggression against people as "war on terror". Thus with one flick of a pen overnight all groups became Islamic Terrorism, despite their widely different views and methods.

Non-muslim terrorists don't fit into this narrative. The "war on terror" doesn't include them.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Because most of the time, the killer themselves brings the Islamic ideology in the picture citing it is in the name of Islam or related with it.

In case of other religion, it's mostly due to being mentally unstable or for personal reasons which has no relationship with religion and hence the religious ideology doesn't get the focus since the killer themselves didn't bring it.

This is a reasonable point but there are two grades to this type of terrorism.

The first grade is organised and methodical type of terrorism, suicide bombings of buses trains etc that definitely fit into the "Islamic terrorism" criteria.

The second grade is this low level type of terrorism ( of course it isn't low to those who lose loved ones) where random lone-ranger crazy people snap and run over civilians or stab people. Those people generally follow a similar pattern - loners, mentally ill, social outcasts. They just happen to be muslims and latch onto "Islam" to give their low level crime some grandeur and make them feel as if they are part of a bigger picture. They are no different to school shooters in the USA IMO. Just deranged people. If they are grouped as terrorists similar to those methodical killers then non-muslim terrorists should also be viewed in the same vein. Otherwise, these type of people should just be seen as mentally ill killers. Maybe that will take some of the glamour away from them too? I doubt someone will want to follow in the footsteps of "mentally ill psychopath loner runs over pedestrians" as opposed to "Islamic Radical" and being grouped with bigger players.