What is a terrorist?
-
Equalling Islam to terrorism is absurd, it's like saying Christianism is terrorist because of the crusades and spanish inquisition. Also, I don't think propagating religious hatred is a solution. In the terrorist groups lists, many groups are missing. Amongst them:* Anti-Imperialist Territorial Units (Nuclei Territoriali Antimperialisti)
- Artisans’ Cooperative Fire and Similar – Occasionally Spectacular (Cooperativa Artigiana Fuoco ed Affini - Occasionalmente Spettacolare)
- Armed Units for Communism (Nuclei Armati per il Comunismo)
- Aum Shinrikyo (a.k.a. AUM, a.k.a. Aum Supreme Truth, a.k.a. Aleph)
- Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)
- Orange Volunteers (OV)
- Red Hand Defenders (RHD)
- Revolutionary Popular Struggle/Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas (ELA)
- Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UDA/UFF)
- Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
- Grupos de Resistencia Antifascista Primero de Octubre (GRAPO)
- International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
- New Peoples Army (NPA)
- Babbar Khalsa
- Cell Against Capital, Prison, Prison Warders and Prison Cells (CCCCC - Cellula Contro Capitale, Carcere i suoi Carcerieri e le sue Celle)
- International Solidarity (Solidarietà Internazionale)
- National Liberation Army (Ejército de Liberación Nacional)
- Red Brigades for the Construction of the Fighting Communist Party (Brigate Rosse per la Costruzione del Partito Comunista Combattente)
- Twentieth of July Brigade (Brigata XX Luglio)
- Unofficial Anarchist Federation (F.A.I. - Federazione Anarchica Informale)
(from http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/cfsp/intro/gac.htm#terr170504[^]) Are they missing because they don't fit the point of view of the website author(s)("The Infidel Army" according to whois) ?
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're ne
K(arl) wrote: it's like saying Christianism is terrorist because of the crusades and spanish inquisition. It was, just as Islam remains today. Your point seems to be that no one should have ever stood up and honestly opposed Chrisitan terroism, and called it what it obviously was, because of all the "innocent" Christians who were not participating in the terror. That is truly absurd. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
K(arl) wrote: Are they missing because they don't fit the point of view of the website author(s)("The Infidel Army" according to whois) ? They are probably missing because they have had a rather low number of murders in comparison to groups such as Hezzbollah, Hamas, and Al Quada. Are you seriously implying that these groups are the same sort of threat as the Muslim terrorist groups? I think that a honest look at the facts will only reinforce the notion that the majority of terrorist acts in the world right now are committed by Muslim fundementalists. The author from the site made the comment "The Infidel obviously thinks terrorists suck or he (or she) wouldn't have created this web site. While performing research for this web site, The Infidel has noticed that the suckiest terrorists are Muslims. The Infidel is not saying all Muslims are terrorists but we need to acknowledge that most terrorists are Muslims. Islam a Religion of peace? More like a cult of death." I don't disagree with his assesment, based on the information I have seen the majority of attacks are by Muslim extremists. Does that mean that all Muslims are killers? Hell no, but I still wonder why they aren't more angry at their religion being hijacked by these nuts. If the Catholic Church was doing some of the same things that happened during the Inquisition and the Crusades in the name of religion, I would be outraged. All I hear from the majority of the Arab\Muslim press is a deafening silence. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: They are probably missing because they have had a rather low number of murders in comparison to groups such as Hezzbollah, Hamas, and Al Quada In the site's list there's ETA, who killed 800 people since the 60's[^]. So because UVF has killed only 400[^], it isn't a terrorist group? Doug Goulden wrote: Are you seriously implying that these groups are the same sort of threat as the Muslim terrorist groups? Yes. When somebody is nut enough to put a bomb in a public place to kill, does his/her religion or political belief make him/her less or more dangerous? think that a honest look at the facts will only reinforce the notion that the majority of terrorist acts in the world right now are committed by Muslim fundementalists. Listening to the same media as you I have also the same belief, but we should perhaps check available data before having an opinion about this. Doug Goulden wrote: All I hear from the majority of the Arab\Muslim press is a deafening silence. it isn't a total silence[^] but it's true it doesn't seem to widely condemn terrorism. It's also true I don't check arab/muslim press very often. And it's also true this press is rarely free.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
K(arl) wrote: it's like saying Christianism is terrorist because of the crusades and spanish inquisition. It was, just as Islam remains today. Your point seems to be that no one should have ever stood up and honestly opposed Chrisitan terroism, and called it what it obviously was, because of all the "innocent" Christians who were not participating in the terror. That is truly absurd. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan, Islam is not terrorism, it's a religion you dope. Within every religion, christian, islam et al, there are extremist groups (hezbollah, pro-life etc.), that will lower themselves to terrorism and the like, but that does not make all followers of a that religion a terrorist. Stop trying to pigeonhole every group so generally it doesn't work, the world is made up of shades of grey, there is no black and white in the way you intimate. Don't get me wrong though, I personally dislike organised religion and religious groups as much as i do terrorist groups, I just don't think it's fair to call them all terrorists, some of them are just plain gullible. [Flame-Proof hat on!] Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
K(arl) wrote: it's like saying Christianism is terrorist because of the crusades and spanish inquisition. It was, just as Islam remains today. Your point seems to be that no one should have ever stood up and honestly opposed Chrisitan terroism, and called it what it obviously was, because of all the "innocent" Christians who were not participating in the terror. That is truly absurd. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
There's a difference between opposing christian/muslim terrorism and saying that every christian/muslim is a terrorist. What I believe is that evil doesn't lie in Christianism or Islam, but in the interpretation some make of it. My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Don't you believe in individuality, Mr Shannon? :)
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Doug Goulden wrote: They are probably missing because they have had a rather low number of murders in comparison to groups such as Hezzbollah, Hamas, and Al Quada In the site's list there's ETA, who killed 800 people since the 60's[^]. So because UVF has killed only 400[^], it isn't a terrorist group? Doug Goulden wrote: Are you seriously implying that these groups are the same sort of threat as the Muslim terrorist groups? Yes. When somebody is nut enough to put a bomb in a public place to kill, does his/her religion or political belief make him/her less or more dangerous? think that a honest look at the facts will only reinforce the notion that the majority of terrorist acts in the world right now are committed by Muslim fundementalists. Listening to the same media as you I have also the same belief, but we should perhaps check available data before having an opinion about this. Doug Goulden wrote: All I hear from the majority of the Arab\Muslim press is a deafening silence. it isn't a total silence[^] but it's true it doesn't seem to widely condemn terrorism. It's also true I don't check arab/muslim press very often. And it's also true this press is rarely free.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: In the site's list there's ETA, who killed 800 people since the 60's[^]. So because UVF has killed only 400[^], it isn't a terrorist group? I didn't mean to imply that the groups that you mentioned were not terrorists, merely that they hadn't killed as frequently in the recent past. I would suggest that the 200 murders by Al Quada in Spain probably show that Al Quada is a more imminent threat than either of the groups you listed, regardless of whether Spain caved into Al Quada's demands. K(arl) wrote: Yes. When somebody is nut enough to put a bomb in a public place to kill, does his/her religion or political belief make him/her less or more dangerous? Obviously not, but the idea that there is something wrong with recognizing that what seems to be a disproportionate number of attacks come from extremist Muslim groups is ludicrous. If the Catholic Church was supporting terrorist acts and issuing decrees by the Pope that supported mass murder people would be incensed. Instead, some people are trying to ignore the obvious fact that certain portions of the Muslim community have decided to take up arms in an attempt to force change on the rest of us. A sort of reverse Crusades if you will. Hamas, Hezzbollah, and Al Quada wear their religion on their sleeves trying to use it as a justification, I would just like to hear some of the mullahs who encourage this explain how they are any different from the Inquisitors of the time. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
K(arl) wrote: Are they missing because they don't fit the point of view of the website author(s)("The Infidel Army" according to whois) ? They are probably missing because they have had a rather low number of murders in comparison to groups such as Hezzbollah, Hamas, and Al Quada. Are you seriously implying that these groups are the same sort of threat as the Muslim terrorist groups? I think that a honest look at the facts will only reinforce the notion that the majority of terrorist acts in the world right now are committed by Muslim fundementalists. The author from the site made the comment "The Infidel obviously thinks terrorists suck or he (or she) wouldn't have created this web site. While performing research for this web site, The Infidel has noticed that the suckiest terrorists are Muslims. The Infidel is not saying all Muslims are terrorists but we need to acknowledge that most terrorists are Muslims. Islam a Religion of peace? More like a cult of death." I don't disagree with his assesment, based on the information I have seen the majority of attacks are by Muslim extremists. Does that mean that all Muslims are killers? Hell no, but I still wonder why they aren't more angry at their religion being hijacked by these nuts. If the Catholic Church was doing some of the same things that happened during the Inquisition and the Crusades in the name of religion, I would be outraged. All I hear from the majority of the Arab\Muslim press is a deafening silence. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I think that a honest look at the facts will only reinforce the notion that the majority of terrorist acts in the world right now are committed by Muslim fundementalists. In the world? Depends who you ask: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3725760.stm[^]
-
Several of the "terrorist" threads below sent googling along... I stumbled upon this[^] site thinking it was satire. Man, was I wrong! This is what a terrorist is; this is what terrorists do. WARNING -- Graphic Material Do not follow these links if you have a weak stomach! [Edit]Offensive links removed[\Edit] Thank you David for the well deserved realignment with civility! :)
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerI think the site is right in some ways - we shouldn't forget what we up against. Islam takes a very hard line against other religions and is explicitly violent in some verses of the Koran. But this should also provide material that lets us remember that there are moderate muslims. Extremist Muslims chop each other heads and limbs off, they still have flogging as a punishment. There is just no way to say that Islam in its purest form is compatible with Western society. Moderates see Islam as a way of life, if they are immigrants they try to integrate it with the country that they are in. I think we must take a hard line on extremist Muslims in our countries, and there is just no way to get around conflicts that are going to arise if you support Sharia Law. But any time we say that we should qualify it to make sure that we indicate that we on the side of Muslims who are willing to temper their religion and accept the law of the land as a higher power.
-
There's a difference between opposing christian/muslim terrorism and saying that every christian/muslim is a terrorist. What I believe is that evil doesn't lie in Christianism or Islam, but in the interpretation some make of it. My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Don't you believe in individuality, Mr Shannon? :)
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Yes you can, and quite justifiably. If I belong to an organization, and elements of that organization are actively participating in acts that I claim violate the principles of my organization, it is not sufficient for me to point at a piece of paper upon which is inscribed those principles and to thereby proclaim myself morally absolved from the behavior of others. If I am not actively seeking to free my organization from those who are violating the very tenents the organization exists to promote, than I cannot be considered to be morally neutral. I am, at best, a moral coward and as blameworthy as those who violate my principles, because those principles are meaningless if they only exist on a sheet of paper that I can quote to you from. For example, as a US citizen, I currently have the choice of supporting the current administration's position or opposing it. If you find fault with that administrations behavior you are perfectly justified in holding me culpable for its behavior if I am not actively opposing it. In fact, you are far more than justified in doing so, you are morally obligated to do so. Else, your morality means nothing. (And, I suspect, you will have little problem in doing so when it comes to judgeing the US.) In exactly the same way, we are not merely justified in holding Islam itself to account for the behavior of a 'few' terrorist who kill in its name, we are irrefutably required by the very tenents or our professed codes of moral ethics to do so. Islam is the sum of its parts, and those parts which do in fact reject terrorism should not be allowed to hide behind the Koran and proclaim that they are parts worthy of consideration - they are not. In all such situations it is not the few 'vicious bastards' who are the problem, they can be dealth with quite easily. It is the hoards of moral cowards who represent the real problem. If you wish to hold Islam to a lower standard than you hold your own culture, that is your business - I won't. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
David, the families of killed have posted the material (all beheadings) to Liberty Unites themselves, so don't assume how do they feel and what do they want. Here's the link. http://www.libertyunites.tv/[^] Regards, Tomaz
I think you failed to see what I meant there; I was not talking about the MPEG file.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
There's a difference between opposing christian/muslim terrorism and saying that every christian/muslim is a terrorist. What I believe is that evil doesn't lie in Christianism or Islam, but in the interpretation some make of it. My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Don't you believe in individuality, Mr Shannon? :)
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: Don't you believe in individuality, Mr Shannon? Speaking for myself, I do - when it is displayed. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Several of the "terrorist" threads below sent googling along... I stumbled upon this[^] site thinking it was satire. Man, was I wrong! This is what a terrorist is; this is what terrorists do. WARNING -- Graphic Material Do not follow these links if you have a weak stomach! [Edit]Offensive links removed[\Edit] Thank you David for the well deserved realignment with civility! :)
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerYou know, I thought I had a stronger constitution up until I saw some of links. It's literally starting to make me feel sick. Jeremy Falcon
-
K(arl) wrote: My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Yes you can, and quite justifiably. If I belong to an organization, and elements of that organization are actively participating in acts that I claim violate the principles of my organization, it is not sufficient for me to point at a piece of paper upon which is inscribed those principles and to thereby proclaim myself morally absolved from the behavior of others. If I am not actively seeking to free my organization from those who are violating the very tenents the organization exists to promote, than I cannot be considered to be morally neutral. I am, at best, a moral coward and as blameworthy as those who violate my principles, because those principles are meaningless if they only exist on a sheet of paper that I can quote to you from. For example, as a US citizen, I currently have the choice of supporting the current administration's position or opposing it. If you find fault with that administrations behavior you are perfectly justified in holding me culpable for its behavior if I am not actively opposing it. In fact, you are far more than justified in doing so, you are morally obligated to do so. Else, your morality means nothing. (And, I suspect, you will have little problem in doing so when it comes to judgeing the US.) In exactly the same way, we are not merely justified in holding Islam itself to account for the behavior of a 'few' terrorist who kill in its name, we are irrefutably required by the very tenents or our professed codes of moral ethics to do so. Islam is the sum of its parts, and those parts which do in fact reject terrorism should not be allowed to hide behind the Koran and proclaim that they are parts worthy of consideration - they are not. In all such situations it is not the few 'vicious bastards' who are the problem, they can be dealth with quite easily. It is the hoards of moral cowards who represent the real problem. If you wish to hold Islam to a lower standard than you hold your own culture, that is your business - I won't. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
K(arl) wrote: My point is you can't judge somebody on his/her religion/color/country because some nuts belonging to the same category are vicious bastards. Yes you can, and quite justifiably. If I belong to an organization, and elements of that organization are actively participating in acts that I claim violate the principles of my organization, it is not sufficient for me to point at a piece of paper upon which is inscribed those principles and to thereby proclaim myself morally absolved from the behavior of others. If I am not actively seeking to free my organization from those who are violating the very tenents the organization exists to promote, than I cannot be considered to be morally neutral. I am, at best, a moral coward and as blameworthy as those who violate my principles, because those principles are meaningless if they only exist on a sheet of paper that I can quote to you from. For example, as a US citizen, I currently have the choice of supporting the current administration's position or opposing it. If you find fault with that administrations behavior you are perfectly justified in holding me culpable for its behavior if I am not actively opposing it. In fact, you are far more than justified in doing so, you are morally obligated to do so. Else, your morality means nothing. (And, I suspect, you will have little problem in doing so when it comes to judgeing the US.) In exactly the same way, we are not merely justified in holding Islam itself to account for the behavior of a 'few' terrorist who kill in its name, we are irrefutably required by the very tenents or our professed codes of moral ethics to do so. Islam is the sum of its parts, and those parts which do in fact reject terrorism should not be allowed to hide behind the Koran and proclaim that they are parts worthy of consideration - they are not. In all such situations it is not the few 'vicious bastards' who are the problem, they can be dealth with quite easily. It is the hoards of moral cowards who represent the real problem. If you wish to hold Islam to a lower standard than you hold your own culture, that is your business - I won't. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Hypocritical Fascist tripe. This argument for collective responsibility is the same argument as the terrorists used to justify attacking the World Trade Center --- for in fact erasing the distinction between civilian and non-civilian casualties. It is not surprising that some members of the American Right should, after appropriate substitutions, have the same perspective on this as Muslim extremists; the mindset is similar in many ways. It is also not surprising that the hypocrisy of the argument should be completely lost on those supporting it. After all, the same people support an idiot for President. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
Several of the "terrorist" threads below sent googling along... I stumbled upon this[^] site thinking it was satire. Man, was I wrong! This is what a terrorist is; this is what terrorists do. WARNING -- Graphic Material Do not follow these links if you have a weak stomach! [Edit]Offensive links removed[\Edit] Thank you David for the well deserved realignment with civility! :)
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerThis site does not list even a single terrorist organization:mad:, for example: 1. United States of America 2. United Nations 3. NATO 4. Israel 5. Britian 6. Australia 7. FBI 8. Mossad 9. M16 10. RAW 11. CIA 12. DOD USA and great terrorist leaders::mad: 1. Arial Sheron 2. George Walker Bush 3. Tony Blair 4. John Howard 5. Koffi Anon 6. Rumsfeld 7. Collin Powel 8. Tomy Frank and many thousand bastards from America, Europe, Australia, Israel and India:mad:
-
This site does not list even a single terrorist organization:mad:, for example: 1. United States of America 2. United Nations 3. NATO 4. Israel 5. Britian 6. Australia 7. FBI 8. Mossad 9. M16 10. RAW 11. CIA 12. DOD USA and great terrorist leaders::mad: 1. Arial Sheron 2. George Walker Bush 3. Tony Blair 4. John Howard 5. Koffi Anon 6. Rumsfeld 7. Collin Powel 8. Tomy Frank and many thousand bastards from America, Europe, Australia, Israel and India:mad:
Perhaps next time you post you'll have the balls to actually log in!
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker