Page 5 of 6 First 12345 6 Last

I disagree with you there, the very nature of this thread is the nature of terrorism. How do you want to discuss that without the Islam, things aren't as straightforward as they seem to be at first glance and suicide attacks shouldn't be seen as normal terrorism apparently. Quite the destinction, and it's worthy of some discussion some more if someone cuts of the dead weight.

Suicide attack is not only used by Islamists or religion - based terrorists, it was historically used by almost all "suicidal-minded" groups of terrorists, while the bombing parts was just a recent invention due to explosives available, (and in medieval times, we could see soldiers carrying explosives and explode that in hope of running before that thingies explode - which often cause them to dead as well), suicide charges and suicidal ambush are used against far superrior troops, and this does constitute "suicide terrorism" on the eyes of the "victim's faction"

EDIT : Correct me if I was playing Age of Empires too much...

Case A: My woefully over-powered force, faced by a vastly superior enemy, fixes bayonets and does the David Niven forward into the mists of glory. They know they're dead, so they take as many with them as they can. Suicidal? Yes. Terrorism? No.

Case B: Jannie is filled with the spirit. He knows that those loathsome Portugese are oppressing his noble dutch family, friends, neighbors etc. He also knows that the Dutch military would be mopped up by the dreaded and effecient Portos. He decides to avoid attacking such difficult military targets in favor of blowing up hundreds of Portugese civilians -- this will horrify and punish the Portugese. Checking security, he decides that planting a bomb for remote detonation or even placing it near enough to the target would be difficult and likely not to succeed. Being true to his beliefs, he decides to strap the bomb to himself, knowing that he can probably get most of the way through security once -- but would never get back out even if he did plant a bomb -- and that he cannot be prevented from detonating it. Suicidal? Yes. Terrorism? Yes.

Terrorism is attacking un-armed civilians in order to horrify members of that polity and related individuals. The goal is to make the oposing nation/group so sick of the situation that they quit or, failing that, punish them as harshly as possible. It presumes that there are no innocents, and that ANY person from the opposing group is an appropriate target (a.k.a. "The only good injun is a dead injun." and "Nits grow into lice.").

Suicidal tactics can provide a force multiplier in combat -- eschewing survival allows for all of a limited resource to be devoted to offense -- but that it true irrespective of whether it is used against an opposing military or against the innocent.

Those damned Portuguese had it coming!

AFAIK the first suicide bombers were Black Tigers, the suicide brigade of the Tamil Tigers (or LTTE). The first time the West encountered terrorism was Hizballah's 1983 Beirut barracks bombing -- which, ironically enough, was not an act of terrorism.

EDIT: Oops, wait, the Tamil Tigers were the first to use them on a large scale. The 1983 attack was the first instance.

The Wizard is quite right. Both suicide terrorism as well as Islamic fundamentalism have only quite recently (±50 years) become popular. Before the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it wasn't really such a big deal.

Not true t http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-Politica.../dp/0674010906 <- best book on the subject I know

Did get more prominent though

Shi'a/Sufi militant groups like the Hashshashin pioneered it way back in the 12th century, though...

Hashashin were sufi? That is new to me

The distinction between the two, when it comes to medieval religious orders/groups, is less clear-cut than it may seem. Take for example the Safavids, who began life as a Sufi order, became militant, conquered a country and instituted Shi'a Islam because it separated the monarch from the plebs 'cause it made him special. The country (Iran), until then overwhelmingly Sunni, then converted to Shi'a Islam en masse.

To be honest I don't know all too much about the history of the Islamic world, I don't know who the Safavids are. Got any source for me to chew on? Wiki doesn't say all that much, I got full library acces so any suggestion will do.

I think this is obvious. The Safavids were a Persianate dynasty in Iran.

Oh excuse me for not knowing every bloody dynasty, I guess I really have no right to enter a discussion on anything Islam. If I don't know I ask, and read up. So thx Da Wizard for suggestions on articles.

So what is the best way to counter Suicide Terrorism then? The average opinion would be "Nuke them".

Fixed.

Good question. Why not start with Northern Ireland - how were the opponents moved towards peaceful/non-violent resolution systems?

indeed, that is what I meant, I wasn't seriously suggesting "nuke them" but I hear this a lot from people when they talk about the Middle East "Just nuke them all, then they can't get us!" mentality.

or: "send in the troops!" that'll sort them out...

Nah, we can't bleed for those savages. It'll be better if we turn it all into a huge shiny glass plate...

Well, I only read the last couple pages, but it seems to me like Hax is trying to say "the people who are fanatical and devout and live the religion are not the real muslims, the real muslims are the ones who follow a more secularized faith and aren't as religious". That seems weirdly backwards, but besides the point. There is no need to make a blanket statement in the firstplace (especially when, as he pointed out, there's no single thing that we could call islam). And since most people intuitively know that some muslims are fanatical and many aren't, quoting some sort of statistics would settle that as far as it can be settled, I assume.

But that simply isn't true, for a muslim to be moderate he must ignore certain aspects of the Islam. The Qu'ran is kinda schizophrenic on certain things, the Mohammed of Mecca is the guy you want to have a cup of tea with, but the Mohammed of Medina is a savage warlord. Both of these aspects of the Islam are true for all muslims. The schism in the Islam is not because of interpretation, it's bloodline, Ali was the last true descendant of Mohammed and not everybody recognized the authority afterwards. Islam is Islam, there is only one. But people are people and most people happen to be good people. There are many wonderful things about the Islam, but also bad, and if you look for either of them you will of course find them. But it's stupid to deny either of these aspects imho.

In all fairness so is the bible

But it does at least make it clear what it means to follow it nowadays. With the Bible, the New Covenant replaces the Old One, with it's more peaceful message. With Islam, you just have the Koran, and it's up to you whether you follow the peaceful or violent way.

Yes but in my opinion one thing is criminally overlooked, and that is grammar. There is plenty horrible stuff in the Bible, but it's in past-present, it is god who punished, pretty brutally by the way. But the Qu'ran is written in imperative, you must do this and that. That is a difference no matter how subtle it may be in language, it is really a difference in consequences.

Fair enough points, but how many of us are as fimilar with the Koran as we are the bible?

Many of these verses you are pulling off websites and I could do the same with the bible, many of these interpatations are left up to people with an agenda.




Now I'm not trying to downplay the severity of terrorism or the role Islam and the Koran play in these different groups, however if I were a betting man the koran would not be my root of exteremism nor a driving force. More like a convient readily avalible tool

I could not agree more really, but the problem is that the lefties have respect. Say anything realistic and they start clawing.

I think this pretty much sums things up.

What is a 'fag enabler' lmao

That group of no more than 100 people, mostly of the same family, has become the go-to example for people who want to relativize Christianity with Islam. There are real questions about their true motivations, with some suggesting that they incite hatred and violence to profit from the resulting lawsuits. In any event, it completely ignores the reality that Islam faces systemic issues not only with terrorism and violence, but also with human rights for women, Jews, homosexuals and others that have been purged from all but the most fringe elements of Christianity. To pick up on Sasaki's comment, the "moderate" Muslims in America and some parts of Europe are the exception to the rule. Certainly the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but I would argue the vast majority in the Middle East and Indonesia (and possibly even Europe) have views, supported by both the Koran and the religious establishment, about how society should function that are contrary to 21st century norms and that do contribute to the incitement to radicalization in a small minority.

(I'm not saying this is what you are doing, I just wanted to point it out. )

No doubt, but more often this means they are simply a bit backward, and not political radicals. Like with Cute Wolf's examples, the experiences he is telling us about are with a small number of university educated radicals, and he said himself that the educated environment is what breeds these extreme views. In Indonesia in particular, the majority of Muslims are 'Abangan' Muslims, meaning they practice local Pagan traditions as much as they do Islam, and are so loose in their beliefs that they will eat pork, drink alcohol etc. There is a divide between the educated urban 'santri' Muslims that often turn to radical Islam, and the uneducated, backward 'Abangan' quasi-Pagan Muslims.

This is why I disagree with the notion that education will cure all the ails that religion causes. Far from it, instead education often lifts people out of their naive, superstitious local practices, and turns it into a consolidated, politicised worldview like with the Jihadists. In a way the same thing happened in Christianity. Religion was relatively docile and a good means for social control before the Reformation, but after Protestantism took off you got all kinds of political radicalism and less nice and therepeutic religious doctrines, with the likes of Puritanism etc emerging.

Which is also quite near to the view of Islam that Omar al-Khayyami propogated in the 12th century AD.

I'm aware, I was just pointing out that people use holy books for there own ends

Page 5 of 6 First 12345 6 Last