Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[Looch City]

Yup, the terrorism definition changed after 9/11.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Terrorism is such a loaded term its kind of hilarious how compartmentalized we treat various violence against people. The only real terrorists are Muslims that attack each other or white people, everything else doesn't fall into our definition. Murdering illegal immigrants doesn't classify as terrorism I guess. Neither does kidnapping or murder for political reasons like in South America.

FARC is classified and treated as a terrorist group. Lots of south American groups are. I guess they don't pose much of a threat outside the Columbian jungle though. I'd rather be nabbed by those guys than ISIS that's for sure.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

FARC doesn't actually kidnap people anymore, as far as I know. Maybe that's naive? Anyway, my understanding was when they did it was for ransom.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by T@T

I assume you mean the fight between Rohingya muslims vs Burmese buddhists?

From my understanding the buddhists are fighting them because they are illegal immigrants from Bangladash...hardly terrorism.

Fighting them is not the terminology I'd use for what is happening. If what's happening there isn't terrorism I'd like to know what you think terrorism is.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Fighting them is not the terminology I'd use for what is happening. If what's happening there isn't terrorism I'd like to know what you think terrorism is.

Well they're not shouting "Allahu Akbar", so it can't be terrorism right?

[CliffFletcher]

Nobody has said radical Islamicists are the only people who carry out terrorism. They're just the ones carrying out the overwhelming number of mass acts of terrorism around the globe in the last 20 years. I still don't understand how people can pretend otherwise, except as some kind of a 'yeah but they do it too' schoolground finger-pointing. This is way too serious of an issue to play dumb games like like.

Here's the wikipedia list of fatal terrorist attacks. Go to the column on the right and filter by date, most recent at top. Then look at the political ideology column and scroll down over the last 20 years.

[jammies]

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Arti...tegoryId=14090

Bombing at gay pride event in Brazil yesterday. Latin American terrorism? Impossible, there's no Muslims there!

Again, organizations like Al-Qaeda have lots of money with which to support terrorism in the West, due to their backers having all kinds of oil money around, with which to import slaves to build skyscrapers and malls, buy military hardware from Canada, and fund some fundies. That's why these particular lunatics are so visible and successful. If you want to stop ISIS and its ilk, your best path is end world reliance on oil, not pontificate about how "Islam"* is to blame.

To be clear, I think religion is a mostly negative force in the world and I am a fervent, if not militant, atheist. But one of those liberal values that CHL and CliffFletcher tout is freedom of religion, and I agree with those values even when I know that this particular freedom is dangerous and open to abuse. Further, being a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever is irrelevant to how I perceive you as a person, just like being an atheist doesn't endear certain intolerant and bigoted people - even on this very board - to me.

*What is "Islam" anyway? That was my main original point, it's far too broad a term to really mean anything useful as far as tracing causes of events. If someone said "This particular group of Wahhabi Muslims subscribe to the teachings of this particular cleric who advocates violent terrorist action, and that's a problem", well, I would agree with that, provided it was true. When you say "Islam" this, or "Muslim" that, you are almost certainly about to frame a statement as "Us vs. Them", and that is exactly the thinking that creates the terrorism you claim to abhor.

[Ashasx]

Nobody ever said terrorism doesn't exist in those parts of the world, but it is less prevalent.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Nobody has said radical Islamicists are the only people who carry out terrorism. They're just the ones carrying out the overwhelming number of mass acts of terrorism around the globe in the last 20 years. I still don't understand how people can pretend otherwise, except as some kind of a 'yeah but they do it too' schoolground finger-pointing. This is way too serious of an issue to play dumb games like like.

Here's the wikipedia list of fatal terrorist attacks. Go to the column on the right and filter by date, most recent at top. Then look at the political ideology column and scroll down over the last 20 years.

Filter it by region and you have a vast majority occurring in the Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan region. Basically the most war torn and poverty stricken regions.

Do you think the Muslim victims of those attacks blame their own faith?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Filter it by region and you have a vast majority occurring in the Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan region. Basically the most war torn and poverty stricken regions.

Do you think the Muslim victims of those attacks blame their own faith?

Yes. Yes they do

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jammies

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?Arti...tegoryId=14090

Bombing at gay pride event in Brazil yesterday. Latin American terrorism? Impossible, there's no Muslims there!

Again, organizations like Al-Qaeda have lots of money with which to support terrorism in the West, due to their backers having all kinds of oil money around, with which to import slaves to build skyscrapers and malls, buy military hardware from Canada, and fund some fundies. That's why these particular lunatics are so visible and successful. If you want to stop ISIS and its ilk, your best path is end world reliance on oil, not pontificate about how "Islam"* is to blame.

To be clear, I think religion is a mostly negative force in the world and I am a fervent, if not militant, atheist. But one of those liberal values that CHL and CliffFletcher tout is freedom of religion, and I agree with those values even when I know that this particular freedom is dangerous and open to abuse. Further, being a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever is irrelevant to how I perceive you as a person, just like being an atheist doesn't endear certain intolerant and bigoted people - even on this very board - to me.

*What is "Islam" anyway? That was my main original point, it's far too broad a term to really mean anything useful as far as tracing causes of events. If someone said "This particular group of Wahhabi Muslims subscribe to the teachings of this particular cleric who advocates violent terrorist action, and that's a problem", well, I would agree with that, provided it was true. When you say "Islam" this, or "Muslim" that, you are almost certainly about to frame a statement as "Us vs. Them", and that is exactly the thinking that creates the terrorism you claim to abhor.

A really good post.

And then you end it with the bold and somewhat ruin it. I get what you're saying, and there is some truth to it in that our reactions fuel more terrorism. But you're way over-stating it, and no, people blaming Islam is NOT what is creating the terrorism. Kind of difficult to put that cart before that horse.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Filter it by region and you have a vast majority occurring in the Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan region. Basically the most war torn and poverty stricken regions.

Again, there are wars and poverty in other parts of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, Latin America. Take a look at the 50 most impoverished countries in the world. Most are not Muslim. And most are not routinely the scene of terrorist attacks. People are not blowing up bus stations in Gambia, Burundi, Haiti, Benin, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Do you think the Muslim victims of those attacks blame their own faith?

I have no idea who they blame. They should blame radicals and religious fundamentalists of their own faith. And societies that have turned their backs on science, progress, humanism, and tolerance.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But you're way over-stating it, and no, people blaming Islam is NOT what is creating the terrorism. Kind of difficult to put that cart before that horse.

That's not what I'm saying, though, I'm saying that this KIND of thinking is what creates terrorism, not this specific instance. Dividing the world into Us vs Them is wrong. Islam vs the West, believers vs non-believers, liberals vs conservatives, cat-people vs dog-people - whichever. All wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Again, there are wars and poverty in other parts of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, Latin America. Take a look at the 50 most impoverished countries in the world. Most are not Muslim. And most are not routinely the scene of terrorist attacks. People are not blowing up bus stations in Gambia, Burundi, Haiti, Benin, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

I believe those regions would be just as volatile if they had an influx of weaponry left behind by past wars, given to them by other countries, or had valuable natural resources waiting to be spoiled.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I have no idea who they blame. They should blame radicals and religious fundamentalists of their own faith. And societies that have turned their backs on science, progress, humanism, and tolerance.

Agreed, they should be blaming radicals and fundamentalists.

I guess what I'm trying to stay is it's more complicated than stating that "Islam" is the one true cause of terrorism. There are a lot of political and socio-economical factors that created ISIS and the ####-show that is now Syria and Iraq.

I really think ISIS would be no different if they were a Jewish group or a Christian group.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Nobody ever said terrorism doesn't exist in those parts of the world, but it is less prevalent.

Violence is endemic to those parts of the world, you don't need to resort to the methods of an asymmetric war of terrorism when the government, militia, or rebel group you're part of can fight your enemies on even terms. Although plenty of them do anyway, I doubt being macheted to death in Rwanda or disappeared by a death squad in Brazil has nothing to do with creating terror.

Money is what drives radical fundamental Islamist groups in the West. Just like, back in the day, money from the Soviet Union drove radical fundamental Marxist groups committing acts of terrorism in the West. Where are those groups now?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

I believe those regions would be just as volatile if they had an influx of weaponry left behind by past wars, given to them by other countries, or had valuable natural resources waiting to be spoiled.



Agreed, they should be blaming radicals and fundamentalists.

I guess what I'm trying to stay is it's more complicated than stating that "Islam" is the one true cause of terrorism. There are a lot of political and socio-economical factors that created ISIS and the ####-show that is now Syria and Iraq.

I really think ISIS would be no different if they were a Jewish group or a Christian group.

There are plenty of weapons in South America, Africa, and the Caribbean. Many of these areas were the fronts of the cold war, and the US/USSR pumped them full of all sorts of automatic weapons.

I do agree though that the issue isn't with the particular religion. It's with the fundamentalists who see the religion as a political force more than a religion. They want to establish a worldwide government, not merely practice a religion in a free society. The fundamentalist movement has far more in common with communist extremists in the 1960s than it does with other religions.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Bombing at gay pride event in Brazil yesterday. Latin American terrorism? Impossible, there's no Muslims there!

That kind of equivocation is ghastly. Did you look at the list I posted the link to?

Originally Posted by jammies

Again, organizations like Al-Qaeda have lots of money with which to support terrorism in the West, due to their backers having all kinds of oil money around, with which to import slaves to build skyscrapers and malls, buy military hardware from Canada, and fund some fundies. That's why these particular lunatics are so visible and successful. If you want to stop ISIS and its ilk, your best path is end world reliance on oil, not pontificate about how "Islam"* is to blame.

Sorry, the kind of attacks carried out in Paris and Brussels don't really require all that much money. They require expertise (not hard to find on the internet), discipline, and, most importantly, fanaticism. Political radicalism is the tinder, and fundamentalists religion is the gasoline.

Originally Posted by jammies

Further, being a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist or whatever is irrelevant to how I perceive you as a person, just like being an atheist doesn't endear certain intolerant and bigoted people - even on this very board - to me.

It can give me some clue as to someone's social attitudes. If someone says they are a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian from Kansas, I can make some pretty strong inferences about their attitudes towards pre-marital sex, family life, science, and homosexuality.

Originally Posted by jammies

*What is "Islam" anyway? That was my main original point, it's far too broad a term to really mean anything useful as far as tracing causes of events. If someone said "This particular group of Wahhabi Muslims subscribe to the teachings of this particular cleric who advocates violent terrorist action, and that's a problem", well, I would agree with that, provided it was true. When you say "Islam" this, or "Muslim" that, you are almost certainly about to frame a statement as "Us vs. Them", and that is exactly the thinking that creates the terrorism you claim to abhor.

Why not look at polls of Muslims in various countries to get some sense of attitudes, values, and beliefs?

Let's be clear - I don't think we're in a struggle between Islam and the rest of the world. I think many Muslims are in a struggle with modernity. And some of those Muslims are taking up violence on a mass level out of intense frustration at the failure of their societies to cope with modernity.

Or you can look at it as a venn diagram. One circle is political radicalism, which includes people of every creed from around the globe. The other circle is Muslims, most of whom are not political radicals. Where those two circles overlap is where we have Islamicist jihadism, which is responsible for the overwhelming number of mass terrorist attacks in the last 20 years. Political radicalism and fundamentalist religion are both necessary to inspire that level of incendiary violence.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's not what I'm saying, though, I'm saying that this KIND of thinking is what creates terrorism, not this specific instance. Dividing the world into Us vs Them is wrong. Islam vs the West, believers vs non-believers, liberals vs conservatives, cat-people vs dog-people - whichever. All wrong, wrong, wrong.

Us vs them is wrong. But so is ignoring problems. If a man murders his wife because his pastor told him, should we blame underlying likely contributors like education and poverty? Yes. But we shouldn't ignore precisely the murderer's stated reason.

Radical islamism is the most direct problem, and it is Islam. Let's stop pretending that the terrorists aren't "real Muslims" or that it isn't a significant problem in the religion.

If people are being radicalized in our mosques, which they are, then it is incumbent upon the religious leaders to fully cooperate to eliminate this (which for the most part they are. We shouldn't start isolating Muslims or preventing them from practicing their faith or make them ashamed of it.

However, to pretend their religion isn't playing a very big role here is both disingenuous and damaging to any future solutions

[nik-]

I think it's interesting that some are so desperate to find the "real causes" and we can't just listen to what the people who perpetrate these crimes tell us is the reason.

How many times does someone need to say they're doing something in the name of their religion, or against western decadence, or against the infidel before we just accept that maybe that is the actual reason.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's interesting that some are so desperate to find the "real causes" and we can't just listen to what the people who perpetrate these crimes tell us is the reason.

How many times does someone need to say they're doing something in the name of their religion, or against western decadence, or against the infidel before we just accept that maybe that is the actual reason.

Yeah. What's the last thing you hear before an ISIS guy blows himself up? It's almost like an OCD thing as much as it is religious. Every bullet those guys fire gets about fifty Allah akbars.