which is not just to point at the Christian wingnuts, but to say, in a word, "you are exactly the same as the other terrorists who've attacked us."
Hmm, I didn't realise that. Possibly because I particularly don't associate either the Taliban (who're a Pashtun political movement who owe much of their current status to U.S. funding) or jihad (which is an Islamic religious concept) with the Saudi-funded Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S. (Aside: the Saudis and the the Taliban don't even practice the same version of Islam.)
I apologize for giving offense.
You didn't offend me. I don't think "jihad" means the same as an appropriated word in USian English as it does in its original context. I think that appropriation is problematic because it means that neither USian culture or Islamic culture understands what the other is talking about when they use the word so it becomes a barrier to communication rather than a bridge.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 12:40 am (UTC)Hmm, I didn't realise that. Possibly because I particularly don't associate either the Taliban (who're a Pashtun political movement who owe much of their current status to U.S. funding) or jihad (which is an Islamic religious concept) with the Saudi-funded Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the U.S. (Aside: the Saudis and the the Taliban don't even practice the same version of Islam.)
I apologize for giving offense.
You didn't offend me. I don't think "jihad" means the same as an appropriated word in USian English as it does in its original context. I think that appropriation is problematic because it means that neither USian culture or Islamic culture understands what the other is talking about when they use the word so it becomes a barrier to communication rather than a bridge.
I'm glad you chose to edit.