SamuelRSmith said:
Armads said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Armads said:
SamuelRSmith said:
kowenicki said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Sweeping statements, much? In modern history, the UK has suffered at the hands of Irish Republicanism more than it has Muslim Extremism.
|
Presumably he is talking globally...
BUT.. this isnt a helpful topic/thread at all.
|
Well, he specifically mentioned "America and Europe", then outlined exceptions to American terrorist incidents. I'm outlining the exception of the UK from Europe. I'm also going to assume that other European countries have higher priorities than Muslim Extremists, too.
---
(No longer directed at Kowenicki), I think a very important thing to remember is that a large number of Muslim terrorist attacks are not directly related to religion. The vast majority of Muslim-related incidents come from Israel and Russia, where the attacks are less on a twisted-take on the religion, and more a struggle for independence. The fact that the people involved are Muslim is almost (but, not entirely, in Israel's case), coincidental. If you are to take those incidents out of the scale, the global threat of "Islam" is much lower. In fact, over the past decade, places like Colombia with the FARC are at far greater risk than anywhere with Islam.
Terrorism isn't all bad, either. It can lead to brilliant changes, and move humanity forward. Boston Tea Party, anyone? Or the Suffragettes?
|
Terrorism does not simply mean anyone who is a radical or revolutionary. Terrorism is the political control of a people of a region through the use of fear, i.e. killing civilians to keep them in fear of participating in their normal lives. It's aim is to control a culture by surpressing the people with fear of retribution.
|
No, it's aim is not to suppress culture, but to fight for (typically) a political ideology, and fear of retribution? Yes, the retribution of the destruction of property. Both the Boston Tea Party and the Suffragettes fit these criteria and are legitimate examples of terrorism which prevailed in its cause.
|
You couldn't be more wrong, terrorism is the use of fear (root word terror, duh) to control a group of people/region.
From wiki:Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Dictionary.com:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
The difference between the boston tea party, suffragettes, and the taliban is that one poured tea into the ocean to protest a tax, the other went on hunger strikes for their right to vote, and one of them uses suicide bombers to kill women and children so they can impose sharia law and take away the freedoms the majority of the people in that region wish to enjoy. It's an insult to call those two movements terrorists and you should be ashamed of it.
|
Wow, sorry if my view on terrorism differs from that of the person who wrote the Wikipedia page - the UN struggles to define terrorism, so why the fuck should I take Wikipedia's word for it?
That's because the UN seeks to define terrorism in a specific enough way to enforce it worldwide, but they all have the same concept at root. The use of fear for a political cause.
And, perhaps you should consider changing times and higher tolerances of shock. Back in the 1770s, disregarding the authority of the British monarch was much more shocking and provoking than it is today (it was also a huge damage to the EITC, which was already financially crippled) (and you think that pouring tea into the harbour was all that happened? It was just part of a series of events which grew progressively more violent leading to the American Revolutionary War).
Haha, read up on your history. We live in a much less brutal time period then the 1770s. A time period in which slavery was widespread and the abuse of humans under the pretense that they weren't humans was rampant. Oh yeah, I'm sure the old parliament wouldn't be able to think up the terrorists that we have today, but they were able to flay the flesh of a man for working too slowly without flinching.
You are also ignoring a key fact about the Boston Tea party. They were resisting an oppressive government that taxed them without their representation. Middle eastern terrorists are attempting to overthrow the government so that they can instill their own dictorial rule in which they will tax people (under sharia law) without their representation.
The suffragettes also did a HELL of a lot more than hunger strikes - they protested, rioted, destroyed property, disrupted huge public events... frankly, they terrorised people.
And, of course, you also have Kowenicki's example of Nelson Mandela.
The difference between modern terrorist activities and those of terrorist activities of past is that people are harder to terrify nowadays - terrorists now realise that crowds are terrified by random acts and, ultimately, death... it's also far easier to kill groups of people now than 200 years ago.
You actually think that Al-Quida, and other Muslim terrorist organisations, exists only to impose sharia law? And, through your post, you seem to imply that I'M the ignorant one? Wow.
|
