• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you know about terrorism?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The USA is clearly a terrorist organization because she unlawfully used force and violence to intimidate and coerce the government, ...
So,
VIOLENCE TO INTIMIDATE AND COERCE = TERRORISM
This is simply absurd. Again, one must ask what and who it serves to obscure the meaning of terrorism.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So,
VIOLENCE TO INTIMIDATE AND COERCE = TERRORISM
This is simply absurd. Again, one must ask what and who it serves to obscure the meaning of terrorism.

Have no clue, according the definition, terrorism fits to the current US government like a glove. Do you have a better definition for terrorism rather than the three definitions given in the OP?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Do you have a better definition for terrorism rather than the three definitions given in the OP?
Yes.
Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". ...
  • While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism, the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs:
    Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).​
[wiki]​
Ask Mel Gibson about the Holocaust and he typically responds by noting that there were many casualties in WWII. The blurring of terms, the systematic elimination of meaningful distinction, is a common characteristic of those seeking to justify a position that they do not have the courage to clearly articulate.
 

ayani

member
only if they intentionally kill innocent civilians. So the folks who are blowing up truck bombs in crowded markets would be terrorists but I have no idea if they are Iraqi or not.

Whether you are a terrorist or not has nothing to do with who attacked who first if you were planning on saying that the Iraqi's were simply defending themselves. What makes one a terrorist is how they fight, not who started what.

Intentionally target civilians = terrorist.

I have no problem with Iraqi's who feel they have been invaded by America and want to defend themselves and their country as long as they fight other soldiers. I think the Iraqi's who do this have made a bad choice but they are honerable and I am sure they believe they are doing something good and right.

I have a hard time with those who drive a truck full of explosives into a market crowded with women and children and blow up fellow Arabs and think they have done something good.

i'm gonna agree with this, here. i have a serious question here: what seperates an "insurgent" from a politically charged, angry civilian. carrying a weapon? using the weapon? supporting certain factions who do carry and use weapons? can a civillian in an occupied country be blamed for feeling angry and being politically involved? i'm remembering a video my counsin sent me from Iraq, of him and his guys arresting some Iraqi men who were standing around in the wrong place. they had no weapons, but were apparently angry (exchanged some choice words with the American unit when confronted) and loitering in the wrong street. my cousin's group had worried that they *might* have weapons and attack, and decided to be safe and arrested them. on the other hand from the Iraqi stand point, these guys were arrested for standing around on their own turf, in a place deemed "off limits" by the American troops buzzing around.

*shakes head* it's hard for me to take sides here. i feel that the occupation of Iraq is wrong, that we're doing alot of things wrongly, stupidly, or cruelly there, but i also want my cousin and high school friends safe. at the same time, my cousin and friends are doing exactly the kind of things mentioned above, following orders and acting to preseve their own lives from preceived or real attack. against people who i think really, really can't be blamed for pent-up anger and frustration. ach.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
i'm gonna agree with this, here. i have a serious question here: what seperates an "insurgent" from a politically charged, angry civilian. carrying a weapon? using the weapon? supporting certain factions who do carry and use weapons? can a civillian in an occupied country be blamed for feeling angry and being politically involved? i'm remembering a video my counsin sent me from Iraq, of him and his guys arresting some Iraqi men who were standing around in the wrong place. they had no weapons, but were apparently angry (exchanged some choice words with the American unit when confronted) and loitering in the wrong street. my cousin's group had worried that they *might* have weapons and attack, and decided to be safe and arrested them. on the other hand from the Iraqi stand point, these guys were arrested for standing around on their own turf, in a place deemed "off limits" by the American troops buzzing around.

*shakes head* it's hard for me to take sides here. i feel that the occupation of Iraq is wrong, that we're doing alot of things wrongly, stupidly, or cruelly there, but i also want my cousin and high school friends safe. at the same time, my cousin and friends are doing exactly the kind of things mentioned above, following orders and acting to preseve their own lives from preceived or real attack. against people who i think really, really can't be blamed for pent-up anger and frustration. ach.

Great post, Gracie! Frubals! My only criticism of your post is that you are being too civil. All of us arm-chair warriors should be at each other's throats here on RF, don't you know? And your example of a reasoned, civil, and polite response just wrecks that. Please try harder in the future to show us all how much hair you have on your chest by being much nastier when you post on this topic. It's shameful you can make your point without animosity!
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Great post, Gracie! Frubals! My only criticism of your post is that you are being too civil. All of us arm-chair warriors should be at each other's throats here on RF, don't you know? And your example of a reasoned, civil, and polite response just wrecks that. Please try harder in the future to show us all how much hair you have on your chest by being much nastier when you post on this topic. It's shameful you can make your point without animosity!

the post she quoted did exactly that as well. :p
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
I asked the question that I did about Iraqis being terrorist because of the way it is stated often in news reports. It is said many times the troops are undergoing terrorist attacks. If the troops are being targeted, it cannot be terrorism because the targets are military not civilian. I have never seen an Iraqi army uniform so I can only infer from that they have no regular army. So if anyone is going to do any fighting, wouldn't it have to be to civilians who take up arms to form resistance or guerilla groups? I just wonder if anyone is really realizing who invaded who. Who's country is war torn and who's isn't. And when we taly it all up, can the Iraqis be to blame for that? Did they ask for this? Sadam is dead, so they still deserve a war on thier heads? How many people think that the Iraqis should not have resisted at all?

I don't see why they have to be termed terrorism. I am frustrated with it because those Iraqis who are fighting the troops are doing only what any of us would in that situation. If we were invaded without an army to protect us and do the fighting, would we not do it? The Iraqis are being disproportionately killed when you compare the numbers of Iraqi deaths and American deaths. It strikes me that Americans care only for the loss of American life, not necessarily someone else's. When was the last time there was an outpour of emotion at the sight of slaughtered iraqis? Slaughtered Palestinians? Yet when the VT thing happened, even the Palestinians who get such a bad rap here, showed an emotional response.

It's a bit off-topic and I'm sorry I have been doing that lately but all these things have been wearing heavily on me. We can sit here and argue about the actual dictionary definition of the word terrorism, but everyone knows when you think of that word you think of us. Not because muslims all around the world are busy slaughtering everyone else, but because the media in all its forms make muslim=terrorist automatically. So excuse us if we are a little worn down from that. ANYTIME a muslim takes up arms it is NEVER considered if it may be legitimate or not it is terrorism full stop. Every one else gets the benefit of the doubt about whether or not their motives are justified, not muslims though. The media paints the picture of the majority of us either being terrorists or supporting it, whether individuals buy into that or not. For every one person who does not believe that, there are probably 10 who do believe it.

I wouldn't have a problem with the label of terrorism if it were equally distributed among all who engage in it, US gov't included.
 

ayani

member
FV- i agree with you. i think the word "terrorist" is generally one that gets way over-used, often in conjunction with langauge that is very dehumanizing and ridiculously one-sided. you're in their country.... you're driving around their streets in tanks and *trying* to keep peace but failing, barging in to houses, acting paranoid, and not even sure why you're there yourself.

i was talking to a guy whose neice was going over to Iraq and wished her well. he responded "thanks, she really just wants to serve her country". which got me wondering... if a young person want to serve their country, why not work within the country, picking up garbage, educating kids, learning another language, or working with prisoners? who does one *have* to join the army and get shot at over-seas to "serve one's country"? where the heck did this idea come from? Iraq is waaaaay over there, you guys. it doesn't have alot to do with Nebraska! or at least, it didn't.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I asked the question that I did about Iraqis being terrorist because of the way it is stated often in news reports. It is said many times the troops are undergoing terrorist attacks. If the troops are being targeted, it cannot be terrorism because the targets are military not civilian. I have never seen an Iraqi army uniform so I can only infer from that they have no regular army. So if anyone is going to do any fighting, wouldn't it have to be to civilians who take up arms to form resistance or guerilla groups? I just wonder if anyone is really realizing who invaded who. Who's country is war torn and who's isn't. And when we taly it all up, can the Iraqis be to blame for that? Did they ask for this? Sadam is dead, so they still deserve a war on thier heads? How many people think that the Iraqis should not have resisted at all?

I don't see why they have to be termed terrorism. I am frustrated with it because those Iraqis who are fighting the troops are doing only what any of us would in that situation. If we were invaded without an army to protect us and do the fighting, would we not do it? The Iraqis are being disproportionately killed when you compare the numbers of Iraqi deaths and American deaths. It strikes me that Americans care only for the loss of American life, not necessarily someone else's. When was the last time there was an outpour of emotion at the sight of slaughtered iraqis? Slaughtered Palestinians? Yet when the VT thing happened, even the Palestinians who get such a bad rap here, showed an emotional response.

It's a bit off-topic and I'm sorry I have been doing that lately but all these things have been wearing heavily on me. We can sit here and argue about the actual dictionary definition of the word terrorism, but everyone knows when you think of that word you think of us. Not because muslims all around the world are busy slaughtering everyone else, but because the media in all its forms make muslim=terrorist automatically. So excuse us if we are a little worn down from that. ANYTIME a muslim takes up arms it is NEVER considered if it may be legitimate or not it is terrorism full stop. Every one else gets the benefit of the doubt about whether or not their motives are justified, not muslims though. The media paints the picture of the majority of us either being terrorists or supporting it, whether individuals buy into that or not. For every one person who does not believe that, there are probably 10 who do believe it.

I wouldn't have a problem with the label of terrorism if it were equally distributed among all who engage in it, US gov't included.


Hey, did you happen to see my response to your question?

Also, have you considered that the only reason US troops are still there is because the arabs are still fighting? If those guys would quit attacking the Iraqi government, Iraqi military, Iraqi civilians and the Americans, we would be gone already.

Since that is the case, I find it strange that you would complain about the US still being there when it is the arab resistance fighters that you are defending who are the reason why we are still there. We would have been more than happy if the Iraqi's simply thanked us for getting rid of Saddam and sent us on our way. Unfortunately, if we left right now, the whole place would go to hell in a month.

The US soldiers don't want to be there, the US government does not want to be there. If the arab fighters would quit killing each other, they could have their country to themselves.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
ANYTIME a muslim takes up arms it is NEVER considered if it may be legitimate or not it is terrorism full stop. Every one else gets the benefit of the doubt about whether or not their motives are justified, not muslims though.

that is not true. You will almost always be wrong making a categorical statement like that.

as I said in post #46:

"I have no problem with Iraqi's who feel they have been invaded by America and want to defend themselves and their country as long as they fight other soldiers. I think the Iraqi's who do this have made a bad choice but they are honerable and I am sure they believe they are doing something good and right."
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
And when we taly it all up, can the Iraqis be to blame for that? Did they ask for this? Sadam is dead, so they still deserve a war on thier heads? How many people think that the Iraqis should not have resisted at all?
Some elements should have been resisted, some shouldn't. I can think of no justification for supporting Islamist theocrats and Baath fascists in resisting the removal of Hussein. I don't like what America does, and I resent the course it has pursued (and yes, I would qualify some of the actions as terrorist) but what defence is there for opposing the toppling of a fascist government?

FVM said:
I don't see why they have to be termed terrorism. I am frustrated with it because those Iraqis who are fighting the troops are doing only what any of us would in that situation.
They are terrorists not because they resist an invading force, but because they blow up cars on busy kerbs seven days-a-week. Not any one of us, I thank you.

FVM said:
The Iraqis are being disproportionately killed when you compare the numbers of Iraqi deaths and American deaths. It strikes me that Americans care only for the loss of American life, not necessarily someone else's.
Sad, innit?

I think it's racism at it's finest. Quiet, acquiescent and disgusting.

FVM said:
When was the last time there was an outpour of emotion at the sight of slaughtered iraqis? Slaughtered Palestinians?
The right ignores, or welcomes it, the lefties exploit it for political gain. I'm not sure which is worse.

FVM said:
I wouldn't have a problem with the label of terrorism if it were equally distributed among all who engage in it, US gov't included.
Yes, I agree. We should recognise all forms of terror, including our own (I'm British).
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I think she exaggerated to highlight the point. ;)


ok, well, the unfortunate truth of the global situation is that most terrorists ARE muslim.

I don't get what the complaint is. We call terrorists terrorists, she is complaining that muslims are getting a bum rap. I would ask, how many non-muslims are out flying planes into buildings, blowing up cars full of explosives in markets crowded with civilians or cutting people's heads off and praising allah while they do it?

Nobody is arguing that all muslims are terrorists, the truth is that probably a tiny tiny tiny percentage of muslims are terrorists, there are more than 1 Billion muslims and I bet only a few thousand terrorists. The problem is that the vast majority of terrorists are muslim. That does not mean that we ONLY call muslims terrorists, I have already given an example of Eric Rudolph who was labeled a terrorist. Much of what the IRA did in the past was terrorism. I don't see America or the western world having any trouble labeling things as terrorism that fit the bill.

I don't know what to do about it all. Should we deny the truth because it makes people feel bad? I don't think we should.

Personally I find the reaction to terrorism in the different cultures to be very telling. In the west, we won't stand for it. Rudolph was captured and locked up. The Unabomber was hunted down and locked up. The western world shunned the IRA for decades. terrorist tactics are unacceptable to us.

In the muslim countries, terrorism is defended as legitimate. Rather than being disgusted with the terrorists in their midsts and hunting them down and getting rid of them. The muslims name streets after the suicide bombers, put their faces on bags of chips and posters, teach little kids that the suicide bombers are hero's. They are glorified. They are at least tolerated and allowed to proliferate.

Even on the pages of RF, rather than being denounced whole-heartedly, the actions of FTO's are defended and they say things like: well, so and so are terrorists too! I hear that kind of argument from my children. There is never any admission that the muslim terrorists are wrong. It is always an excuse instead. They want to argue over the definition of the word rather than talk about the problem when it is obvious that no matter what definition one uses, if those who are suicide bombers, fly planes into buildings and cut off heads are not terrorists, then nobody is.

If the middle east is ever going to get rid of its terrorism problem, it is first going to have to admit it has a terrorism problem. no matter who they want to point the finger of blame at, the fact remains that almost all terrorists are muslim. I would suggest that their focus would be better spent dealing with internal problems before pointing the fingers elsewhere.

At least that is my opinion.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
If the middle east is ever going to get rid of its terrorism problem, it is first going to have to admit it has a terrorism problem. no matter who they want to point the finger of blame at, the fact remains that almost all terrorists are muslim. I would suggest that their focus would be better spent dealing with internal problems before pointing the fingers elsewhere.

At least that is my opinion.
I wholeheartedly agree.

I don't know if almost all terrorists are Muslims.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Comprehend said:
If the middle east is ever going to get rid of its terrorism problem, it is first going to have to admit it has a terrorism problem.

I agree.

Like Scott, however, I don't know if "almost all terrorists are Muslim". There are numerous terrorists in South America who do not seem to be Muslim. There are numerous terrorists in Sri Lanka who do not seem to be Muslim. There are numerous terrorists in Africa who do not seem to be Muslim. I don't know of any census of terrorists, and so I don't know if "almost all terrorists are Muslim".
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I wholeheartedly agree.

I don't know if almost all terrorists are Muslims.

I can't point to any study or anything to demonstrate the assertion. I could give circumstantial evidence based upon current events and news stories but no real numbers.

I guess I will have to say it is my opinion that almost all terrorists are muslims.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I agree.

Like Scott, however, I don't know if "almost all terrorists are Muslim". There are numerous terrorists in South America who do not seem to be Muslim. There are numerous terrorists in Sri Lanka who do not seem to be Muslim. There are numerous terrorists in Africa who do not seem to be Muslim. I don't know of any census of terrorists, and so I don't know if "almost all terrorists are Muslim".

I differentiate between "guerilla warfare" and "terrorism". Guerilla warfare to me would be asymetrical warfare attempting to achieve the same or similar goals as conventional warfare only without the capability to conduct conventional warfare. In otherwords, guerilla warfare will target infrastructrure, military and political leaders.

Terrorism on the other hand targets innocent civilians and has different objectives than conventional warfare.

Do any of the groups you have in mind still apply and if so do you have the names of any of these groups?
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
There is never any admission that the muslim terrorists are wrong.

I couldn't disagree more with that statement. Myself and other muslims have discounted such things as killing innocent civilians as wrong and against Islam. I know I have said it a jillion times and so have my muslim borthers and sisters here. I don't think I have ever read one of us say that we support the murder of innocent people, and think it's cool.

What you are reading as an excuse is simply someone giving the possible other view to the whole thing. Most of us only have one side of the coin, so if I were you I would not dismiss the opposite POV as a mere excuse.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
In otherwords, guerilla warfare will target infrastructrure, military and political leaders.

Most of the reports I hear of "insurgents" are targeting the US military camps and outposts. So wouldn't that be guerilla warfare? Are you under the impression that the "insurgents" only attack their own?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top