are only muslims terrorists?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

are only muslims terrorists?

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:35 am

i once read on a forum, somewhere, that all terrorists were muslim and that that meant that islam was an inherently bad religion. although being of a dubious nature, it is partially true - muslims are probably the only abrahamic religion to use terrorism as frequently as they do. the reason is that christianity (and judaism, because it's supported chiefly by christian nations, such as the US) doesn't resort to terrorism is because it is probably the most powerful religion out there. the united states - unquestionably the most powerful country out there - is predominantly christian, so if that doesn't make christianity the most powerful religion, i don't know what does. anyway, because of this, they can almost, by definition, *not* succomb to terrorism. terrorism is pretty much synonymous with guerilla warfare, which is analogious to asymetric warfare, whose wikipedia entry states the following:

Asymmetric warfare is a military term to describe warfare in which the two belligerents are mismatched in their military capabilities or accustomed methods of engagement such that the militarily diasadvantaged power must press its special advantages or effectively exploit its enemy's particular weaknesses if they are to have any hope of prevailing

the US is militarily disadvantaged to no one. hence, christianity is effectively disadvantaged to no one (and again, judaism, because it's kinda in bed with christianity). so, christianity, by definition, can't committ terrorism.

of course, there are isolated incidents of christians using terrorism against one another. eric rupert rudolph - the guy who bombed a bunch of abortion clinics in atlanta georgia and did the centinial park bombing during the atlanta olympics - is a good example of this.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby tsian » Thu Nov 11, 2004 6:05 pm

Umm.. there have been plenty of 'Jewish terrorists' and 'Christian terrorists'... they just tend not to be called that.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby Rapscallion » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:22 am

weren't there some Buddist terrorists in the past?
:D
Rapscallion
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 9:51 pm
Location: still near Phoenix, AZ in the US

Postby Cloud Strife » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:50 am

muslims are NOT terorists i know lot's of em...gotta tell you NONE of em can eaven get mad or raise there voice let alone kill people and stuf! :grrdev:
STRESS:The confusion created when the mind must override the body's basic desire TO CHOKE THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF SOMEONE WHO DESPERTELY DESERVES IT!
User avatar
Cloud Strife
Traveler
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:12 am
Location: Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:14 am

perhapes i should clarify what i meant with this post...

muslims aren't prone towards terrorism so much as the definition of terrorism seems to be biased towards including them.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Exalted Ugu » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:28 am

That is always the way, though. Terrorism is explicitely not a weapon of the weak, as the strong are always in a better position to create terror. But the strong also control the doctrinal system, and can deliniate who is and who is not a terrorist. What is a vicious act of terroism in the hands of a man with a few sticks of dynamite and a cheap fuse is collatteral damage or a similar euphamism if it's comitted by a major power (or one we like, at least). The best example of this is the 1982 truck bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon which is always described as a terrorist act, even though it explicitely targeted millitary forces in a combat zone.

The murders committed by Jewish settlers on the west bank or in gaza, the unjustifiable actions of the IDF in reprisal attacks on palestinian civilian targets, these are Jewish terrorism.

Christian terror is a little harder to find, at least in the mid-east. Since there are few doctrinally Christian states (the US exepted) you have to look to individual Christian groups, anti-abortion or anti-gay protest groups would certainly count in this category though...

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:08 am

There are terrorists of all types. Like has been stated there are Christian terrorists, Jewish terrorists, enviromental terrorists, left-wing terrorists, and right wing terrorists.

But I would have to say the radical Islamic terrorists are the most dangerous by far. Many are state sponsored, they have huge financial networks and the sympathy of many western media organizations and international bodies.

Another thing that sets them apart is they actively seek death.
Very dangerous.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:36 pm

But I would have to say the radical Islamic terrorists are the most dangerous by far. Many are state sponsored, they have huge financial networks and the sympathy of many western media organizations and international bodies.


Umm.,,. is that assertion based on anything? I mean, I always thought the newsmedia was more forgiving towards Isreal than Osama, but maybe thats just me.

Another thing that sets them apart is they actively seek death.


Is that assertion based on anything? Do you actually think they all want to die?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:44 pm

The best example of this is the 1982 truck bombing of the American barracks in Lebanon which is always described as a terrorist act, even though it explicitely targeted millitary forces in a combat zone.

that's a good point. there's also then the bombing of the uss cole.

i suppose a better definition of terrorism as far as many people in the US use the term is... people who attack without presenting any clear target for reprisals?

that would enable both of the above attacks to be terrorist ones while excluding, for example, the us's bombing of cambodia (which is said to have killed an estimated 600,000 civilians).

of course, i suppose another question is - does presenting a target for reprisals constitute bad military strategy? or at the very least, does it constitute it when you have a unquestionably inferior military?

EDIT: thinking about this, i actualy wonder - do terrorists present clear targets for reprisals or not? i mean, surely, when the US invaded fallujah, their plan wasn't too shot everything that moved, was it?

also, i suppose that this definition of terrorism were valid, that the US wouldn't be free of it, either. there were lots of clandestined CIA operations, such as they bay of pigs fiasco, that the CIA engaged in, whose chief purpose was to not present a clear target for reprisal.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Exalted Ugu » Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:28 pm

My belief is that terrorism, as the US gov't applies the term has no real meaning. It is an emotional tagline, a way for the government to associate whatever they wish people to dislike with this nebulous conception of murdered civilians and sinister foreigners in turbans.

This is, of course, why the 'war on terrorism' is absolutely without meaning.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby Neerowolf » Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:28 am

I think it's true.

In my defense, I blame you all for allowing bush to become presidant again.

>:[
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Exalted Ugu » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:42 am

Don't blame _me_, i'm a Canadian.

-ugu
Exalted Ugu
Townfolk
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby LarryTGC » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:26 am

It is an emotional tagline, a way for the government to associate whatever they wish people to dislike with this nebulous conception of murdered civilians and sinister foreigners in turbans.



Hahaha, Terrorists defined as sinister foreigners in turbans. Thats a good one. Reminds me of the mandatory re-education class at work. They tell us we must refer to homosexuals as 'differenty oriented'. We've had a few good laughs with that nonsense. :lol

A big part of the propaganda war comes down to labels and definintions of words.

For example, for those that have sympathy for the enemy may call terrorists... 'insurgents'.

Or they may call a homocide bomber... 'a man with a few sticks of dynamite and a cheap fuse'.

Or they may call the Commander and Cheif... 'A go it alone cowboy' or a 'Nazi'

I guess in the end it comes down to with whom each individuals sympathies are.

In my defense, I blame you all for allowing bush to become presidant again.

Don't blame _me_, i'm a Canadian.


You can blame me in part for John Kerry's loss and Democrat losses in the Senate and House. ^_^
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Postby tsian » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:37 am

Actually, insurgent has quite a clear meaning: "Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government."

They tell us we must refer to homosexuals as 'differenty oriented'.

Honestly I've always thought calling gay people by their first name was the best way to go, but thats just me.

Or they may call a homocide bomber... 'a man with a few sticks of dynamite and a cheap fuse'.

In fact the term 'homicide bomber' was one created to spin perception. The long accepted term was, and continues to be, 'suicide bomber', implying that the person is taking their own life. Obviously anyone who sets off a bomb that kills someone has commited 'homicide'.

I guess in the end it comes down to with whom each individuals sympathies are.

Actually, I'd say it comes down to precise use of the language in an attempt not to subvert it.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby LarryTGC » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:01 am

Alright, Alright, is it tooo much to ask that we call those that hijacked planes and flew them into the World trade center, those that blew up the khobar towers and the Cole, those that fight elections in Iraq ect....

The Enemy.
LarryTGC
Traveler
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:43 pm

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest