ISIS and other terrorist organisations should not be identified as islamic terrorists

I have been to be quite frank disturb by the media attacks on the white house and President Obama's directive to not identify ISIS as a islamic terror group and I'm curious to debate this topic with anyone who believes that ISIS and other terrorist groups should be identified as islamic terrorists

Here is a few Definitions

Islam: the religion of Muslims, having the Koran as its sacred scripture and teaching that there is only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet; Mohammedanism

terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

first round is for acceptance only

As a quick note to con you may be new to this website but if it says first round is acceptance only it means that you are supposed to accept the debate in the first round.

1. Letting Terrorists define themselves
When we allow terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda to define itself as a religious group you give the group a certain legitimacy that these horrible groups do not deserve. It also, whether you believe it not, associates the religion of Islam with these groups even though their twisted ideologies do not truly reflect Islam. The vast majority of Muslims and the current religious leaders of different sects of Islam, both Shiite and Sunni, have condemned the murder of innocents

2. Texts of the krona are no longer used today
You might say that the Koran does support these awful practices but for every quote from the Koran that promotes violence i can match with a quote form the bible that promotes violence. For books reflect he time they were written and although some of the primary themes carry resonance in Christianity and Islam many have been left out. For instance In the bible it says in Exodus 21:10 - "If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish" which in translation supports polygamy, a practice that former Mormon communities practice in Utah and Arizona. This obviously isn't enforced by today's clergy so to say that this antiquated tradition reflects Christianity is no different than saying that ISIS's deluded version of Jihad represents Islam.

3. Islam has a extremely large number of branches
To call Islamic terrorists is a vast oversimplification of what the word Islam mean and ignores the thousand years of history that Islam has left behind as well as the fact that their are hundreds of different branches of Islam with the two largest being Shiite and Sunni. This religious branches have been feuding for almost 1000 years so to put them under a single branch of Islamic terrorist promotes a ignorance of a religion that is already misrepresented in the American public.

4. Promotion of stereotypes
Whether you do or not you think it happens when you associate a religion with terrorist organizations the lines become blurred with the pubic. This has led to unfavorable views of Muslims that range from the media complaining that Muslims don't apologize for their radicals or nonsensical reporting such as Muslim zones were the police can not go. Though many of these statements were often retracted this shows that the public has been mislead to believe that the religion of Islam is often equitable to the terrorist actions of radical branches of company who justify atrocities by saying they are doing it in the name of religion. The west can't claim to have done any different with the crusades, the 30 year war, KKK, and the Spanish Armada being a excellent example of political gain being sought with the excuse of religion being used to justify unwarranted expansion and violence or pursuit of a political agenda.

5. This type of treatment is not applied else where
Just because someone kills in the name of a religion does not mean that that religious deserves to have any association with radicals that have perverted their message. For instance if people started killing people in the name of the Red Cross would we identify them as Red Cross terrorists or would we have the common sense to realize that these terrorists do not represent their veins.

Rebuttals
1."If a person or persons state that they are committing a crime in the name of a religion, even if it goes against the teachings of the religion, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be labelled as a religious terrorist organization."
Because no religion deserves to be associated with the radicals of society that pervert their message for political, monetary, and societal gain.

2.This does NOT mean that all the followers of the religion agree with the statements or actions of the organizations, however it still is, by definition, a religious terrorist organisation.
Than by this logic all Christians should take ownership of the catholic sex scandals, abortion doctor killings, and the KKK. However, we won't do that because common sense dictates that no religion should hold ownership of those who pervert the messages of ones religion.

Conclusion
I hope that I have proved to my opponent and the viewers of the site that no religion deserves to be associated with the radical fringes of their religion.
http://www.gallup.com...

I extend my arrguments

I extend my arrguments