• 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.

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Terrorism

Many people are confused about what terrorism really is and its true nature, and some other just want to label any enemy as a terrorist. There is alot of definitions and we will go through many. I think this topic is very important to know how we think and feel in order to understand each other, because even those who talk about terrorism don't know what it's.

Let's take the general definition from this website:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

According to Wiki:

There is a disagreement on definition of terrorism. However, there is an intellectual consensus globally that acts of terror should not be accepted under any circumstances.

According to the FBI:

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined
in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?

Also, how do you expect that everybody will agree with you just because you think a certain organization is a terrorist group if there is no SINGLE universal accepted definition for terrorism?

Let's have an example ...

US university shooting kills 33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm

Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html


According to the first definition which i posted, we conclude that this is an act of terror, and we can surely call it as terrorist attack without hesitations because, it's:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Therefore, the university shooting is a terrorist attack but the media called it just "shooting" and i'm so sure that if a muslim killed only 2 or 3 in that university, not 33 as what this Korean guy did, people will automatically call this incident a terrorist attack, and the media might call it "America under attack" or "a new terrorist attack on our nation".

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

Do you want a proof that it's just about religion? and more specificaly, about Islam/Muslims, not the war on terror in general?

This is the proof ladies and gentlemen from the tongue of the President of the United States of America:


This statement clearly prove without a doubt that, the war on terrorism is no more than a crusade war, and everytime we hear or read Mr. Bush say this word, so everybody will remember this war is indeed, a crusade war against Muslims.

Nevertheless, when this crusade war is in the past, so alot of people come easily to condemn it (well, not everybody), but they won't call the current war as a crusade war just because it has another name now, which is the war on terrorism, so it's no more a crusade war !!! :cover:

This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth.


180px-CrusadeTen.jpg
 

UnityNow101

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that this is a war on Islam, but more of a war against Eastern philosophy as a whole. We want to westernize the entire middle east so that our American companies can thrive over there...It is all about the $$$.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Many people are confused about what terrorism really is and its true nature, ...
But not you, of course ...

Behead.jpg

I am more than willing to believe that you have an accutely accurate understanding of "what terrorism really is and its true nature".
 
I am just a regular girl not a historian or an expert on this by any means and I can see where you are coming from about the crusade aspect of it

this is my opinion ------

The Middle East at one time was the center of it all -- it was where the birth of the major monotheistic religions began -- Chritianity and Judaism begat Islam which incorporated both of those religions but it went a step further -- not only did Islam have the Quran as a guide it also gave the people a moral code and laws.

this is where I think things went wrong -- when the christian and jewish people were driven out of the area and emigrated to the Americas and other places -- Islam spread throughout the region and grew --- but when the people left they took with them ideas and knowledge and made a better life for themselves in other places -- and instead of the Middle East remaining the cultural and technological hub of the world -- it remained stagnant --- as greater economic opportunities were founded elsewhere ---

the Middle East has been long forgotten and exploited by the western world over the course of history --

bring it to present day and what do we see --- 'resistance to democracy' in the Arab world which comes from centuries of neo-colonial surrogates - brutal military dictatorships and absolutist monarchies imposed by the US and Britain whose only purpose is to safeguard oil and Israel ---

what is the response? -- what can be done to stop the Zionist regimes which have robbed them of peace and security -- killed and starved their people and taken their land while sucking up their natural resources?

there is only one response -- terrorism

Had the western world embraced the Middle East instead of exploiting it and trying to control it -- the hatred would have never been cultivated into the sophisticated terrorist groups that we have now --








 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't believe that this is a war on Islam, but more of a war against Eastern philosophy as a whole. We want to westernize the entire middle east so that our American companies can thrive over there...It is all about the $$$.

Hmmm, let's say it's not about Islam. Do you think that America have problems with the Middle East because of the natural resources they have like oil, gold, etc?

Maybe that's why most of the countries in the Middle east have been invaded and colonized by European countries like Italy, France, Britain in the past.

Countries stopped colonizing other nations so maybe the war on terror now is the best and most effective way to recolonize nations in that area?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
But not you, of course ...

Behead.jpg

I am more than willing to believe that you have an accutely accurate understanding of "what terrorism really is and its true nature".

I'm sure you could find many sites around the internet where smearing members is much better appreciated than it is here. At the very least, you owe Truth an apology, Jay.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?

I suspect it's a lot like trying to define pornography ("I know it when I see it.")

Also, how do you expect that everybody will agree with you just because you think a certain organization is a terrorist group if there is no SINGLE universal accepted definition for terrorism?

Well, that and a lack of objectivity on the part of many entities and sometimes individuals using the label.

According to the first definition which i posted, we conclude that this is an act of terror, and we can surely call it as terrorist attack without hesitations because, it's:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

No, I don't think the VT shooting would qualify, because where are Cho's idiological or political reasons? He was mental is all.

You could accurately say that McVeigh's act was one of terrorism, though.

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

Dig up some articles on McVeigh. He's referred to as a domestic terrorist.

I remember the Troubles (my best friend was nearly blown up by an IRA bomb, for that matter), and the IRA was widely called a terror group though clearly none are Muslims.

The Tamil Tigers are called a terrorist group here. Again -- not Muslims.

Do you want a proof that it's just about religion? and more specificaly, about Islam/Muslims, not the war on terror in general?

There does seem to be a higher than usual incidence of terrorism coming from largely Muslim parts of the world. I don't think that's because there's something wrong with the message of Islam as much as there are social/economic/political reasons that lead to violence.

Goodness knows, the unresolved Palestinian/Israel issue is like a festering wound. The longer we take to find some justice for everyone there, the more problems we're all going to have.

The days when problems from across the world didn't need to concern us are long gone.

This is the proof ladies and gentlemen from the tongue of the President of the United States of America:


This statement clearly prove without a doubt that, the war on terrorism is no more than a crusade war, and everytime we hear or read Mr. Bush say this word, so everybody will remember this war is indeed, a crusade war against Muslims.

I humbly suggest that all Muslims everywhere simply consider the source here. Bush's father had some sense concerning international affairs, no doubt because he has a decent brain and he was the Chief Spook over at the CIA for a spell and got educated on some issues.

His son, unfortunately, does not have that background. Quite frankly, my teenage son seems to have a better grasp of world affairs.

I guarantee that Mr. Bush, even now, has no freakin' clue what "crusade" sounds like to a Muslim.

If you did word assoiation with him and mentioned "crusade" he would probably respond "Billy Graham." :yes:

Nevertheless, when this crusade war is in the past, so alot of people come easily to condemn it (well, not everybody), but they won't call the current war as a crusade war just because it has another name now, which is the war on terrorism, so it's no more a crusade war !!! :cover:

Frankly, I see it as a war for American hegemony, which is not a thing I consider either necessary or desirable.

Don't worry, Truth. If we keep pursuing hegemony our country will soon find itself unable to take up crusades any more.

Remember how quickly the Soviet Union collapsed? I think it would be unwise to assume that we couldn't take a nosedive nearly as quickly. At the moment our economic house is sitting on a bunch of sand.

This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth.


180px-CrusadeTen.jpg


Unfortunately, if you live here and don't take the time to look elsewhere for information, you won't have a clue how others see it.

If my fellow Americans had a clearer idea of what we've been up to, they'd never support it. As it is, there are serious rumblings about where all the money is going and whether we should be destroying our kids' future for all this.

As always, Daddy Warbucks is makin' out just fine.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But not you, of course ...

Behead.jpg

I am more than willing to believe that you have an accutely accurate understanding of "what terrorism really is and its true nature".

I don't claim to know everything, but rather, i'm willing to listen to people but not to my own ego.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
But not you, of course ...

Behead.jpg

I am more than willing to believe that you have an accutely accurate understanding of "what terrorism really is and its true nature".

Funny, I don't recall Truth ever posting something like that and supporting the idea.

I could make a similar comment in your direction, but I suppose I'd have to moderate myself if I did.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
The word can (of course) be used subject to the point one is trying to make, i.e
The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973)
from the definition beneath:-
From the Etymology on line dictionary
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Hmmm, let's say it's not about Islam.

Well, it isn't really about Islam. Which of course doesn't mean Islam is not abused as a means to strike fear into the populace so they can be more easily controlled.

Do you think that America have problems with the Middle East because of the natural resources they have like oil, gold, etc?

That's the point I was aiming for in one of my posts. It's all about hegemony, not religious differences.

If there were no oil or other strategic/geographical considerations, we wouldn't give a rat's arse about the area.

Maybe that's why most of the countries in the Middle east have been invaded and colonized by European countries like Italy, France, Britain in the past.

Well, the area has been one of strife for millenia, which is pretty common in any area that's a geographic crossroads. It's also been an area of great creativity and innovation, which is a historical fact often lost in discussions.

Countries stopped colonizing other nations so maybe the war on terror now is the best and most effective way to recolonize nations in that area?

Countries stopped overt forms of imperialism. That doesn't mean they haven't found other ways to exert imperial power.

(I'm curious...has anyone here read "Confessions of an Economic hit man?" I've only heard the author interviewed, but I find what he has to say intriguing.)
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am just a regular girl not a historian or an expert on this by any means and I can see where you are coming from about the crusade aspect of it




this is my opinion ------

The Middle East at one time was the center of it all -- it was where the birth of the major monotheistic religions began -- Chritianity and Judaism begat Islam which incorporated both of those religions but it went a step further -- not only did Islam have the Quran as a guide it also gave the people a moral code and laws.

this is where I think things went wrong -- when the christian and jewish people were driven out of the area and emigrated to the Americas and other places -- Islam spread throughout the region and grew --- but when the people left they took with them ideas and knowledge and made a better life for themselves in other places -- and instead of the Middle East remaining the cultural and technological hub of the world -- it remained stagnant --- as greater economic opportunities were founded elsewhere ---

the Middle East has been long forgotten and exploited by the western world over the course of history --


bring it to present day and what do we see --- 'resistance to democracy' in the Arab world which comes from centuries of neo-colonial surrogates - brutal military dictatorships and absolutist monarchies imposed by the US and Britain whose only purpose is to safeguard oil and Israel ---


You are making very good points in here, and i agree with most of what you said.​


Regarding the thing you mentioned about driven out Jews and Christians, it is not so accurate because Jews and Christians are living in that area since long time till now and they are part of that area, and normal citizens. There are a very good article written by a famous Jewish writer and he mentioned in it the relationship between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the past till now. You will find it in this link below:



what is the response? -- what can be done to stop the Zionist regimes which have robbed them of peace and security -- killed and starved their people and taken their land while sucking up their natural resources?


there is only one response -- terrorism


Had the western world embraced the Middle East instead of exploiting it and trying to control it -- the hatred would have never been cultivated into the sophisticated terrorist groups that we have now --



Maybe we can say here that the response is resistance and defending themselves, which so many people in the West might think of it as terrorism.​
 

Dream Angel

Well-Known Member
Terrorism


Many people are confused about what terrorism really is and its true nature, and some other just want to label any enemy as a terrorist. There is alot of definitions and we will go through many. I think this topic is very important to know how we think and feel in order to understand each other, because even those who talk about terrorism don't know what it's.

Let's take the general definition from this website:



According to Wiki:



According to the FBI:



If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?

Also, how do you expect that everybody will agree with you just because you think a certain organization is a terrorist group if there is no SINGLE universal accepted definition for terrorism?

Let's have an example ...

US university shooting kills 33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm

Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html


According to the first definition which i posted, we conclude that this is an act of terror, and we can surely call it as terrorist attack without hesitations because, it's:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Therefore, the university shooting is a terrorist attack but the media called it just "shooting" and i'm so sure that if a muslim killed only 2 or 3 in that university, not 33 as what this Korean guy did, people will automatically call this incident a terrorist attack, and the media might call it "America under attack" or "a new terrorist attack on our nation".

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

Do you want a proof that it's just about religion? and more specificaly, about Islam/Muslims, not the war on terror in general?

This is the proof ladies and gentlemen from the tongue of the President of the United States of America:


This statement clearly prove without a doubt that, the war on terrorism is no more than a crusade war, and everytime we hear or read Mr. Bush say this word, so everybody will remember this war is indeed, a crusade war against Muslims.

Nevertheless, when this crusade war is in the past, so alot of people come easily to condemn it (well, not everybody), but they won't call the current war as a crusade war just because it has another name now, which is the war on terrorism, so it's no more a crusade war !!! :cover:

This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth.



180px-CrusadeTen.jpg

HI, I dont agree with you that the two shooting incidences were terrorist at all - and no its not because they were not muslim! Yes, there are as upsetting and heart renching as terrorist attacks are but there is a major difference.

Name a terrorist that has worked alone?.... you cant! Terrorists are part of a group, a cult if you like, they even have training to become terrorists in special camps. They use religion as their excuse and reasoninng for their attacks. If I do this Allah will grant me that!

I AM NOT saying that all muslims are terrorists - anybody who thinks that it is obsurd! But unfortunately all terrorists claim to be muslim! It is about religion, it is about power, it is about getting the governments attention and causing worlwide caos, they have leaders, specific facilities etc etc. The shootings were just maniacs who lost it and went on a killing spree for the fun of it! Terrorists - believe it or not there is reasoning and logic behind it (for them!)

I think you may be trying to defend your faith a bit too much here. I think you prob feel isolated because you are a muslim and you feel people will use that against you. But just because it makes you feel like that, doesnt mean you should deny what terrorism really is, and start saying all murderers are terrorists.
You religion is Good, the people who use it for these attacks are bad. If it was people using the christian faith I would say the same thing!

So there is a big difference between the classified terrorist attacks and the shootings - both and bad but they are different!!!
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I'm sure you could find many sites around the internet where smearing members is much better appreciated than it is here. At the very least, you owe Truth an apology, Jay.


the picture was clearly a response to the picture Truth posted.

I see two mods jump on Jay without a word to the cause.....
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Terrorism

Many people are confused about what terrorism really is and its true nature, and some other just want to label any enemy as a terrorist. There is alot of definitions and we will go through many. I think this topic is very important to know how we think and feel in order to understand each other, because even those who talk about terrorism don't know what it's.

Let's take the general definition from this website:



According to Wiki:



According to the FBI:



If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?

Also, how do you expect that everybody will agree with you just because you think a certain organization is a terrorist group if there is no SINGLE universal accepted definition for terrorism?

Let's have an example ...

US university shooting kills 33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm

Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html


According to the first definition which i posted, we conclude that this is an act of terror, and we can surely call it as terrorist attack without hesitations because, it's:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Therefore, the university shooting is a terrorist attack but the media called it just "shooting" and i'm so sure that if a muslim killed only 2 or 3 in that university, not 33 as what this Korean guy did, people will automatically call this incident a terrorist attack, and the media might call it "America under attack" or "a new terrorist attack on our nation".

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

Do you want a proof that it's just about religion? and more specificaly, about Islam/Muslims, not the war on terror in general?

This is the proof ladies and gentlemen from the tongue of the President of the United States of America:


This statement clearly prove without a doubt that, the war on terrorism is no more than a crusade war, and everytime we hear or read Mr. Bush say this word, so everybody will remember this war is indeed, a crusade war against Muslims.

Nevertheless, when this crusade war is in the past, so alot of people come easily to condemn it (well, not everybody), but they won't call the current war as a crusade war just because it has another name now, which is the war on terrorism, so it's no more a crusade war !!! :cover:

This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth.


180px-CrusadeTen.jpg

If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?
Which war? If you are going to discuss the root meaning of terrorism why did you immediately bring up "this war". This only exposes your own bias.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Therefore, the university shooting is a terrorist attack but the media called it just "shooting" and i'm so sure that if a muslim killed only 2 or 3 in that university, not 33 as what this Korean guy did, people will automatically call this incident a terrorist attack, and the media might call it "America under attack" or "a new terrorist attack on our nation".
You stop short on underlying relevant parts of the definition you wish to use to define the Va. Tech shooting as a terrorist act because if you didn't...your definition fails. If a muslim shot a couple of people in a university then yes, it is highly probably that people will call it a terrorist act. But "people" say many things...;)

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

You must have never paid any attention to the conflicts in Ireland.

The rest of your post is propaganda (note: I despise this president so you are not being taken to task by a religious conservative) and highly illustrative of complaints raised by comprehend.

But in my opinion the United States has engaged in acts of terror. That in no way means that this garbage of an OP with such clear bias deserves anything more than scorn. In the thread which surely inspired this one your stated object was to define terrorism. You have done no such thing.

edit: I think a better attempt at pointing out terrorism beyond the notion of "muslim terrorists" would be pointint to the Omagh bombing in 1998(?), the bombing of abortion clinics, the use of sweeping warrants by LAE task forces against a community, Darfur, etc.




 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Terrorism


Many people are confused about what terrorism really is and its true nature, and some other just want to label any enemy as a terrorist.

I'll say.:rolleyes:


There is alot of definitions and we will go through many. I think this topic is very important to know how we think and feel in order to understand each other, because even those who talk about terrorism don't know what it's.

you are claiming that NOBODY who talks about terrorism knows what it is? That doesn't make much sense.

If nobody knows what terrorism is then you would not know what it is and therefore couldn't say whether others knew what it was or not... your statement is a contradiction.

If the FBI itself can't define terrorism for us so how can anybody trust what America--the leader in this war--label as terrorism?

The FBI iteslf, DOES define terrorism, they just said that no definition is universally accepted which is entirely different.

Also, how do you expect that everybody will agree with you just because you think a certain organization is a terrorist group if there is no SINGLE universal accepted definition for terrorism?

That does not mean that some acts do not fit all definitions, nor does it mean that the definitions are not so similar as to allow for a general understanding of what terrorism is. I think that 9/11 would fit every definition of terrorism. Can you find a legitimate definition that would not include an act such as 9/11?


Let's have an example ...

US university shooting kills 33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm

Federal Officials: At Least 32 Dead After Virginia Tech University Shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266310,00.html


According to the first definition which i posted, we conclude that this is an act of terror, and we can surely call it as terrorist attack without hesitations because, it's:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons".

Therefore, the university shooting is a terrorist attack but the media called it just "shooting" and i'm so sure that if a muslim killed only 2 or 3 in that university, not 33 as what this Korean guy did, people will automatically call this incident a terrorist attack, and the media might call it "America under attack" or "a new terrorist attack on our nation".

Nope. There was no intention in the shooting to intimidate or coerce a society or government for either an ideological or political reason so your example fails and your analysis is wrong. It does not fit the first definition.

So, i don't want to jump into conclusion and i'll leave it open for all of you to discuss and judge. But, you have to know that, even though there is no mentioning for a religious act in any definition as a must for an attack to be an act of terrorism, but i never heard of any attack which the media called terrorism unless it was done by Muslims.

Your assumption is wrong. I would categorize Eric Rudolph's bombing of an abortion clinic in Atlanta to be an act of terrorism.

From Wiki:

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing was a terrorist bombing on July 27, 1996 in Atlanta, Georgia during the 1996 Summer Olympics, the first of four committed by Eric Robert Rudolph. Two people died, and 111 were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

Do you want a proof that it's just about religion? and more specificaly, about Islam/Muslims, not the war on terror in general?

This is the proof ladies and gentlemen from the tongue of the President of the United States of America:


This statement clearly prove without a doubt that, the war on terrorism is no more than a crusade war, and everytime we hear or read Mr. Bush say this word, so everybody will remember this war is indeed, a crusade war against Muslims.

I hope you just didn't pay attention to what you have just quoted, otherwise I would think you were purposefully trying to mislead us.

Bush did not call it a crusade in the historical Christian v. Muslim sense (and if you actually read the wiki article, you would know that) any more than Eisenhower did when he said this:

"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world."

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/dday/orderofthedayaudio.html

You have to understand context, Muslims may only have one understanding of the word "crusade" but American do not.

For example:

AIT Worldwide Logistics Continues Crusade Against Breast Cancer
http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/468761

Surely you do not think this is a fight against muslim cancer cells do you? ;)

Nevertheless, when this crusade war is in the past, so alot of people come easily to condemn it (well, not everybody), but they won't call the current war as a crusade war just because it has another name now, which is the war on terrorism, so it's no more a crusade war !!!

Why would anyone see this as a crusade in the religious sense? America is a secular nation, UK is a secular nation, etc etc. The fight is not lead by any church leaders but by world leaders, Saudi Arabia for example is fighting against Al Qaida, would you call Saudi Arabia Crusaders?

This is how so many people today in the world see it, this is the truth.

this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it, if not, you might as well say "many people believe in Santa Claus, he is real."

Anyway, I guess the entire point of this thread was to say that nobody can accurately say what a terrorist is but that is clearly false. While not everyone agrees on any single definition, almost every definition is sufficiently similar to allow for a general understanding and non-specific consensus of what does and does not constitute a terrorist act.

I like Booko's adaptation of "I know it when I see it," the famous pornography phrase from the USSC.

Anyway, I have given a simple definition of terrorism as I wanted to use it in one of the threads and have used that simple definition for the purposes of the discussion. If the purpose of the thread was to say I personally do not know what terrorism is, I would disagree. After 9/11 I was invited to speak at the Virginia Military Institute on the subject of Terrorism and did so. They seemed to think I knew a little bit about it. :shrug:
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Ðanisty;822451 said:
Regardless of how many ways the word crusade is used, it was a poor choice on Bush's part to use it.

I agree, it was an incredibly dumb word to use. However, to attempt to say that because that word was used it constitutes "proof" those fighting in the war on terror are on some Christian religious mission against Muslims is a bit dishonest.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
the picture was clearly a response to the picture Truth posted.

I see two mods jump on Jay without a word to the cause.....

If you don't see "*** MOD POST ***" at the beginning of a post, you should assume I'm acting as a user.

I'm a user too, you know.

And Jay is a big boy and can handle himself. If I've misunderstood something, I'm sure he'll clear it up for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top