Terror Attacks

[BigLutz]

Lolololol.
Anyways my guess is they're aiming at people like you. Who's to blame them really, the US are terrorists too. ;355;

Yeah... Damn those US Troops for strapping suicide bombs onto their chests and willfully going out and targeting women and children, heading out each day and trying to rack up as many innocent deaths as possible! [/sarcasm]

I love Uninformed Children talking about Grown Up things. It's cute.

 

[Shepard]

How specifically, is looking to the past to define terrorism today painting the big picture or looking at the grander scope? If anything it seems like splitting hairs.

The point I was trying to make was that if we look at human history as a whole a) terrorism is not new, and b) this 'new' form of terrorism is probably no more significant than other forms historically, and only seems so because it is an immediate threat and not one separated by a few hundred years of time. I realize that we've sort of agreed to disagree on the definition of a 'grander scope', but to my mind any view of the 'grander scope' or the 'bigger picture' really should emcompass a perspective that compares the relative magnitude of terrorism today to terrorism in the past, thus why I want to consider terrorism in the past. Even then, I realize it's not a fair comparison since the force of Globalization over the past century will tend to make things like modern terrorism seem bigger, and our own egocentric (not meant disparagingly) point of view generally tells us that what's happening now is more important than what happened yesterday. As I said before, I believe that this 'new' form of terrorism is no more significant than other forms of terrorism historically. Unfortunately there's no way to prove this except in hindsight hundreds of years from now, so it all this really is is my opinion, but I think it's a valid one. This isn't splitting hairs, it's putting things in a bigger perspective.

That is where I disagree. Perhaps the religion didn't "evolve" at all, it was just distorted by man. The principle message still stands regardless of whether man misinterprets it or not.

I agree with you in principle, but I still think you're missing a big point. Just like the meaning of words can change over time, so can what a religion represents. Just even look at this thread; Islam is essentially a "religion of peace" at its core, but what it has come to represent, through the actions of extremist terrorists, is hatred and senseless violence. I'm not saying that that's a fair stereotype to build up, but it certainly does cloud the (probable) original intent of Islamic doctrine. My point with this is that, yes, you're right, the principle message does stand in a sense despite any misinterpretation by man, but it is usually that popular misinterpretion that becomes the image and reality of a religion. To come back to a previous example I used (which I also think you misinterpreted), the Catholic Church is now essentially popularly seen as a religious institution which does not allow women priests or gay people to get married. This, as I have argued, does not fit with Jesus's preachings to "love everyone" and "treat others as you'd like to be treated" (i.e. 'equality for all'), and thus is the result of widespread misinterpretation of the principle teachings of the religion by the people who 'run' it (for lack of a better phrase ). The reality of no women priests and no gay marriage in the church is therefore a result of those misinterpretations manifested. The religion itself, therefore, is now much more 'about' the reality resulting from the misinterpretation of its core teachings than the core teachings themselves, and is viewed as such in the world. If you ask an average person what Catholicism represents, I'm willing to bet they'll say "no gay marriage" quicker than they'll say "God is love". So again, yes, you're right that misinterpretation by man does not change the intent of the original message, but it does and can drastically change what the religion comes to represent in society.

 

[BigLutz]

Just like the meaning of words can change over time, so can what a religion represents. Just even look at this thread; Islam is essentially a "religion of peace" at its core, but what it has come to represent, through the actions of extremist terrorists, is hatred and senseless violence.

Unless the meaning of "Peace" has changed in some way then you are wrong on this. Yes there are peaceful verses in it I do not deny it, but that does not negate the incredibly violent verses in it as well, or the violent activities of Mohammad later on in his life. Unless you want to just well, gloss over those. Not to mention the story of Al-Nadr bin al-Harith and Uqba bin Abu Muayt who apparently, was beheaded after the Battle of Badr because he ridiculed Mohammad.

'But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?' Uqba cried with anguish.
'Hell,' retorted the Prophet

Sounds more like a action movie where the leather clad hero aims the gun at the bad guy and says a cold line before blowing their head off. Religion of Peace right?

 

[The Admiral]

Wow, horrible topic-starting.

Right so I guess that the IRA were Islamic.

MOSTLY. Otherwise, I can see your points, but I'm gonna prod at a few chunks.

I grew up in a muslim household and have read the Qu'ran it doesn't say that.

Doesn't the Moslem religion place a high value on martyrdom? So, it's probably closer to misinterpretation.

They may have no reason to live but I don;t think that the Muslim culture is a medieval religion if it is then that must mean all religion are medieval religion.

Consider that most religions haven't changed a whole hell of a lot over the years. So...

Not all muslims hate America and how is it their or the media fault that the world is way it is today now you are being silly.

It's the fault of the media or these terrorists for thinking this way. Suppose the media transmits an anti-American message; is it unreasonable to think that at least some will be brainwashed?

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim.

Swallow a bullet, please. Was the IRA a group of Moslems? Was our president in 1945, when he ordered the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, a Moslem? I think not! Most modern terrorists may be Moslems, but by no means is a statement like "all terrorists are Moslems" true. Fundamentalist Moslems (FMs) do account for a large portion of today's terrorists, though, I'll grant.

Islam can MEAN Peace but that doesn't mean that it actually is peaceful. I love how people try to defend Islam saying how it is the Religion of Peace. Listen you can call your religion anything you want, I could create a Religion called "Super Happy Peace" but there are various parts in the Quran that are not peaceful, just as there were parts of Mohammad's life that was not peaceful.

I blame people more than the religion itself.

Yeah... Damn those US Troops for strapping suicide bombs onto their chests and willfully going out and targeting women and children, heading out each day and trying to rack up as many innocent deaths as possible! [/sarcasm]

I love Uninformed Children talking about Grown Up things. It's cute.

Terrorism is more than just FMs suicide bombing. There's probably not much in terms of other forms of terrorism today, but The U.S., if you want to get down to it, used terrorism in the past -- defining terrorism as "the use of tactics to incite fear in an enemy; the use of fear as an armament.

'But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?' Uqba cried with anguish.
'Hell,' retorted the Prophet

Sounds more like a action movie where the leather clad hero aims the gun at the bad guy and says a cold line before blowing their head off. Religion of Peace right?

I laughed at this idea. I'd now like to see Qu'ran: The Movie.

It's less the events in the stories than it is the teachings, I think... I'm not so familiar with the Qu'ran, but does it not teach that peace is the way, generally?

 

[BigLutz]

Was our president in 1945, when he ordered the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, a Moslem? I think not! Most modern terrorists may be Moslems,

Except you can't really count the bombing as a attack of terrorism as both targets had high military value for the Japanese War effort and the Defenses of Southern Japan. I mean unless you want to count Firebombing Cities, Shelling Cities, and a million other acts that happened in WW2 as acts of terrorism, which at that point is a incredibly broad view of terrorism.

Terrorism is more than just FMs suicide bombing. There's probably not much in terms of other forms of terrorism today, but The U.S., if you want to get down to it, used terrorism in the past -- defining terrorism as "the use of tactics to incite fear in an enemy; the use of fear as an armament.

If you want to use the broadest of terms, then I think Americans would gladly accept that they terrorized the terrorists and Nazis.

I laughed at this idea. I'd now like to see Qu'ran: The Movie.

It's less the events in the stories than it is the teachings, I think... I'm not so familiar with the Qu'ran, but does it not teach that peace is the way, generally?

It does, except if some one criticizes the religion or isn't a muslim, in which case the passages tell you to fight them, and they get a bit fuzzy as to what 'Peaceful' actions you are supposed to take.

It should be noted that Mohammad started out peaceful like say Jesus. But as Mohammad's life went on and on and he faced persecution, he became more and more violent to the point of leading whole armies against the "Enemies of Islam" and raiding entire towns. As he got more and more violent the lines in the Qoran got more and more violent.

 

[The Admiral]

If you want to use the broadest of terms, then I think Americans would gladly accept that they terrorized the terrorists and Nazis.

Which, I guess, is fair enough, but we're still fighting fire with fire doing so, y'know? Terrorism will still persist. Of course, I see no end in sight and, alas, cannot suggest a better alternative. I mean, outside of saying "Hey... let's just get a global ceasefire!" That'll never happen. I mean, I could say it, but a global ceasefire will likely never occur.

 

[BigLutz]

Which, I guess, is fair enough, but we're still fighting fire with fire doing so, y'know? Terrorism will still persist. Of course, I see no end in sight and, alas, cannot suggest a better alternative. I mean, outside of saying "Hey... let's just get a global ceasefire!" That'll never happen. I mean, I could say it, but a global ceasefire will likely never occur.

Actually I would say we are doing the opposite, we're going into these terrorist havens such as Afghanistan, where all these people know is that Americans are these baby killing cannibals who piss on the Qoran when ever they can. And we are driving the terrorists out, we are building schools, we are building infrastructure, and doing a million other things. All of which tend to combat the image in the Middle East which for nearly a decade has been dominated by the voices of radicals.

 

[legendary master Jose]

Why does this world have to be so cruel because of terrorists? What are they

even aiming at? I really don't know what's the point of killing people for joy.

People just hate you. When I was watching the news on the Mumbai attacks,

I almost cried. Not being racist, just saying... So, who here thinks the world

would be better without terrorists. Sometimes I think WW3 Should start so all

the terrorists would die.

the problem is that terrorism will never die as long as there are radical islamics (or really anything for that matter it wont die)

would the world be better with out terrorist? Hell yes. for one people in the middle east wouldnt have to fear for thee lives every time they go to the market.

and no you dont want WW3 (we all saw what happened to end WW2 i dont want to imagine how WW3 would end)

 

[chuboy]

the problem is that terrorism will never die as long as there are radical islamics (or really anything for that matter it wont die)

would the world be better with out terrorist? Hell yes. for one people in the middle east wouldnt have to fear for thee lives every time they go to the market.

and no you dont want WW3 (we all saw what happened to end WW2 i dont want to imagine how WW3 would end)

You fail.

I am stunned that there are people here that associate 'terrorist' with 'Arab towelhead wearing white sheets and holding camel'. Anybody who possesses that level of ignorance is an insult to nature. People wouldn't have to fear for their lives every time they go to the market? Are you f*cking kidding me? It's the 21st century, you seem to think that the Middle East exists in some sort of alternate dimension that is devoid of any technological development.

The IRA were a terrorist group, if you remember, who fought to drive the British out of Ireland. The religion of choice was invariably Catholic. There was a noticable absence of camels or burkas. There was bitter fighting, but strangely, people don't make a fuss when they hear an Irish accent or notice the pasty white skin of an Irish person P).

Why is it so that anyone of Middle Eastern appearance is automatically a threat? I find it offensive, akin to saying that all Asians are exactly the same in anatomy and personality.

What else did I want to say.....

Oh yeah, BigLutz, without this turning into another useless mini debate, can I suggest that you don't make assumptions about the good that US Soldiers do in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc etc, until you've actually lived with them? I understand that you feel strongly about what they're doing but the fact is all you know about it is what you see in the media, which is strongly biased and censored.

I'm sure that they are doing good stuff but holding your eyes closed and pretending there is no good in the world except for US soldiers really just makes you look silly. There are plenty of reports of US soldiers doing the wrong thing. You don't have to look hard at all.

The best people in this situation are the good old neutral Swiss =D


How about a reference the actual debate? Hmmm...

War against terrorism...fighting fire with fire...having sex in the name of virginity...all really the same thing.

If you actually think about violence as a solution to terrorism, really CONSIDER it, you'll see it's a ridiculous idea. There is no logic to it.

As for the Q'uran preaching evil...well how many Christians do you see killing giants with slingshots? Eating the flesh of their Lord? The very same Lord that initiated the plagues of Egypt?

You can whinge about the senseless hatred in Islam as much as you want, the Bible is chock-a-block with it too. God even invented a place called Hell, for people who don't believe in his religion, where they must spend eternity after they die. Or consider Jehova's Witnesses, a branch of Christianity that is so extreme that parents are forced to watch their own children die from internal injuries because the doctrine forbids blood from outside to enter the body.

This is a fantastic debate topic, it's just such a shame that every second sentence with the word terrorist in it is accompanied by a load of codswallop in it.

The ignorance in this thread astounds me.

 

[randomspot555]

Was our president in 1945, when he ordered the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, a Moslem?

War, especially war between countries with militaries, is not terrorism. Just because it's a violent action, or a morally bad action, does not automatically make it "terrorism"

the problem is that terrorism will never die as long as there are radical islamics (or really anything for that matter it wont die)

You do know there are other people besides Muslims living in the Mideast, right? From what I hear, the Jewish people aren't exactly innocent of violence either.

 

[Shepard]

If you actually think about violence as a solution to terrorism, really CONSIDER it, you'll see it's a ridiculous idea. There is no logic to it.

I'm glad to find another person who realizes that violence only feeds the vicious cycle of terrorism.

 

[BigLutz]

Oh yeah, BigLutz, without this turning into another useless mini debate, can I suggest that you don't make assumptions about the good that US Soldiers do in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc etc, until you've actually lived with them? I understand that you feel strongly about what they're doing but the fact is all you know about it is what you see in the media, which is strongly biased and censored.

I'm sure that they are doing good stuff but holding your eyes closed and pretending there is no good in the world except for US soldiers really just makes you look silly. There are plenty of reports of US soldiers doing the wrong thing. You don't have to look hard at all.[/quote]

Well A: I have never said that the Soldiers only did good.

B: The news over here never and I mean NEVER plays feel good stories about Iraq or Afghanistan. You don't hear about the schools being made, you don't hear about sewage systems being laid, or the new park, or women being able to get jobs, etc etc. The news here is already extremely biased as you said, but it skews to the Liberal perspective. In the sense that if it doesn't contain Blood and Violance, or make Bush look bad, or make the US look like we are losing. It doesn't get on the air.

C: It's also extremely silly to think that a good majority of forces especially in Iraq are doing non combat acts. From simple things like handing out candy to children to patorling streets, to actually helping in the rebuilding effort. As was the same in Afghanistan before the Taliban resurged in 2007. There are plenty of reports of Soldiers doing the right thing, problem is you actually have to look really hard for them. You have what over 200,000 US Personal in both Afghanistan and Iraq, if even a small minority of them were comitting horrible acts you would hear about it.

Hell you hear about it even if they DIDN'T comit the acts.

How about a reference the actual debate? Hmmm...

War against terrorism...fighting fire with fire...having sex in the name of virginity...all really the same thing.

If you actually think about violence as a solution to terrorism, really CONSIDER it, you'll see it's a ridiculous idea. There is no logic to it.

As for the Q'uran preaching evil...well how many Christians do you see killing giants with slingshots? Eating the flesh of their Lord? The very same Lord that initiated the plagues of Egypt?

You can whinge about the senseless hatred in Islam as much as you want, the Bible is chock-a-block with it too. God even invented a place called Hell, for people who don't believe in his religion, where they must spend eternity after they die. Or consider Jehova's Witnesses, a branch of Christianity that is so extreme that parents are forced to watch their own children die from internal injuries because the doctrine forbids blood from outside to enter the body.

Ahh your ignorance really never ceases to amaze me. Take a topic while talking about Islam and throw in Christianity just to make Islam look okay. I mean I can understand if this topic had a real discussion of the Bible vs Qoran but it seems that those that wish to argue in favor of Islam just like to pull another religion into the topic to say "Hey look! It isn't as bad as Christianity!" while trying to avoid the actual argument.

Anyway you can compare it to Christianity if you want, but until you find me passages of Jesus, who's teachings by the way really is the foundation for modern day Christianity. Is leading soldiers to ransack a city and ordering executions of those that made fun of him. You really do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[The Admiral]

War, especially war between countries with militaries, is not terrorism. Just because it's a violent action, or a morally bad action, does not automatically make it "terrorism"

If you'd noticed my earlier definition of terrorism... Not all of war revolves around fear-as-weapon combat. As we know, the Japanese would not surrender, even after the firebombing. So, we drop the recently-finished atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They are afraid, and give up. Fear was used as a tool to achieve victory. Thus, terrorism. Even the dictionary agrees with me...

the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Look at that!

Why is it so that anyone of Middle Eastern appearance is automatically a threat? I find it offensive, akin to saying that all Asians are exactly the same in anatomy and personality.

It's because we Americans are racist ****s. (Ironic, I know.) It's because these are the images of terrorists we are given, and, I think, we jump to conclusions way too fast about them. THAT is scary.

 

[BigLutz]

If you'd noticed my earlier definition of terrorism... Not all of war revolves around fear-as-weapon combat. As we know, the Japanese would not surrender, even after the firebombing. So, we drop the recently-finished atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They are afraid, and give up. Fear was used as a tool to achieve victory. Thus, terrorism. Even the dictionary agrees with me...

Except that is under the mis guided belief that they were actually scared of the atomic bomb. For that belief to be true they would have surrendered after the first bombing not the second. Nor would the military have considered a Cue to keep going. Both bombs obliterated Military Facilities which could be considered vital for the war effort if we were to invade Southern Japan. They were beaten back to their home land, we had been shelling them, and we had just unleashed a weapon that could destroy a entire city full of military resources, oh and the Soviets were about to invade to the north. They were beaten.

And really for a nation that employed the use of Kamakazi Pilots, I have a very hard time believing that they suddenly decided to surrender out of fear and not due to being completely outmatched.

It's because we Americans are racist ****s. (Ironic, I know.) It's because these are the images of terrorists we are given, and, I think, we jump to conclusions way too fast about them. THAT is scary.

Ahh yes Blanket Statements for a entire nation, how fun.

 

[The Admiral]

Ahh yes Blanket Statements for a entire nation, how fun.

I'll be fair that not all of them do, and it's really just a guess as to why it happens. Hell, it's entirely probable that I'm wrong and just a sarcastic douche who hates the media and everyone, and inherently thinks 99% of the human race is deranged... Eh. I'm guessing that there is at least some media involvement with the "Moslem = terrorist" image which crops up more often than it should.

 

[legendary master Jose]

War, especially war between countries with militaries, is not terrorism. Just because it's a violent action, or a morally bad action, does not automatically make it "terrorism"



You do know there are other people besides Muslims living in the Mideast, right? From what I hear, the Jewish people aren't exactly innocent of violence either.

You fail.

I am stunned that there are people here that associate 'terrorist' with 'Arab towelhead wearing white sheets and holding camel'. Anybody who possesses that level of ignorance is an insult to nature. People wouldn't have to fear for their lives every time they go to the market? Are you f*cking kidding me? It's the 21st century, you seem to think that the Middle East exists in some sort of alternate dimension that is devoid of any technological development.

The IRA were a terrorist group, if you remember, who fought to drive the British out of Ireland. The religion of choice was invariably Catholic. There was a noticable absence of camels or burkas. There was bitter fighting, but strangely, people don't make a fuss when they hear an Irish accent or notice the pasty white skin of an Irish person P).

Why is it so that anyone of Middle Eastern appearance is automatically a threat? I find it offensive, akin to saying that all Asians are exactly the same in anatomy and personality.

The ignorance in this thread astounds me.

Obviously you 2 didnt bother to read my post completly

the problem is that terrorism will never die as long as there are radical islamics (or really anything for that matter it wont die)

for one i said RADICAL Islamics NOT! muslims in general.

and after that i said as long as there is radical anything terrorism wont die.

 

[Koji123456789]

beeeeeeeepp!

 

[J'han]

lol... Yous got banhammered.

But, back to the topic. I think the problem is radicals of any belief system, be it religous or personal. If things are healthier in moderation (wine for example), so to beliefs are healthy in moderation. My brother has a shirt that says "Death to Fanatics." Now, before I lose my train of thought to the irony, the shirt has a good point.

Not all fanatics need be terrorists, but most terrorists are fanatics. Fanaticism seems to be the biggest cause of terrorism. Anyone who takes things too seriously, or wishes to impose their beliefs on others has a good chance of becoming a terrorist.

 

[superluis5]

there are a lot of Tarorist from the Middle East that say that they are doing in the name of their religiion

 

[Kipcha]

I don't believe all terrorists came from any one group, but I don't really pity them, because it is their choice. Who I do pity are the people they target, and all the innocent lives that have been lost in the name of religion. The world really is a pretty messed up place right now, and I hate the people who say they are just poor, misguided souls. They made their choice to walk into a childs birthday party and blow themselves up. These people are rather insane to think it is okay (I realise I am smashing peoples beliefs here, but it's my opinion) to just do things like this, and I find it pretty funny that everyone who thinks they deserve our pity and time, instead of shooting them before they explode, are still alive because they have never approached a suicide bomber. I get the feeling the families of victims from 9/11 would not be so forgiving because the members of Al Queda just weren't sure where to turn.

Now that I am finished my little off-topic but still on-topic rant, tell me what ya think.