Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The biggest flaw in that list is that it defines "terrorism" from a very pro-US standpoint. That may go some way to explaining why it's a meticulous faction count of Islamic and Marxist cells but laughably over-simplified when it comes to African, non-Islamic Asian, and Ulster groups.

As a faction count, which is how you're using it, it's flawed and incomplete. It's also begs the question of what causes a group to be defined as a terrorist, doesn't it?

[Ted Striker]

Quoted by Natan:
it just so happens that the belt of Islamic nations corresponds to an area prone to terrorism and violence..

THIS is what I'm trying to say.

I'm not saying that "just because they are Muslim" that MAKES them INTO terrorists. I'm saying the largest group of terrorists is made up of Muslim groups.

I'm not implying any sort of inherent evil just because they are Muslims, and that "non Muslim" groups are somehow "good guys."

There is a significant amount of terrorism in Africa. There is a significant amount of terrorism in South America. There is an amount of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

However, those are not as widespread as the amount of terrorism done in the name of Islam. (Rwanda wins first prize in terms of scale though. And Columbia is a close second. In both of these cases, however, the terrorism is localized).

Terrorism done in the name of Islam is in fact a perversion of the religion, and true Muslims do NOT condone it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

So what you're saying is that the largest minority on these particular lists (which aren't comprehensive or precise lists) is made of Islamic groups which may (or may not) be active and may (or may not) have a large membership, and may (or may not), pose a threat in some way to someone? Possibly. In at least some cases.

Meanwhile there are other groups elsewhere who may be killing lots more people but only people in the same or directly adjacent nations.

Is that right?

[axi]

ELA doesn't exist any more. They disbanded themselves five years ago. However there are other small groups, often siblings and alter-egos of one another, which plant one bomb and then vanish.

If you want to include ELA in this list, you might as well include RAF, 2juni, RZ, AD, CCC and other disbanded European organisations.

I didn't know there were so many terrorist groups in NI.

And most orghanisations in your list are not terrorists, they are guerilla organisations: DHKP/C , PKK, SL, FARC, MRTA and others.

It is strange that your list can contain FARC but not say EZLN.

As for paiktis, he must be the first Greek that I've seen adhere to Huntington's POV, after he wrote his majestic pile of crap, "Clash of Civilisations". Orthodox=evil? Come on!

Apart from this, I'd say no: muslims are not prone to terrorism. If there is a correlation, it is indirect; there are the biggest part of the oppressed peoples of the globe, their societies have been kept backward, they are oppressed by a culture that bears a different religion than theirs, so it is normal for them to revolt.

[Kropotkin]

Maybe it's time to give ted bundy... ehh I mean striker a break, he's point seems pretty decent after he made his point clear and removed some generalizing statements.

[9 ECAC Titles]

Are we really talking "terrorism" -- i.e., actions that are intended to just scare the **** out of everybody in order to force submission to their demands?

Then this is a part of every form of organized violence, even that which is committed by modern states. We just call it "psychological warfare" or "wearing down morale." But it amounts to the same thing. The reason it appears that we don't do it is that we don't advertize to our citizens that we do -- that would be pretty self-defeating, don't you think?

We keep complaining that this was terrorism because we see it as outside of a state of war -- the militant Isalmic world, on the other hand, has *stated* they have been at war with us for years.

Stop splitting hairs over terrorism and warfare and just accept the fact that we are at war with a dangerous force and we should now win the war. Let the historians, from a safe distance, call it all a result of western aggression or whatever.

[Bereta_Eder]

Axi,
I called Hungtington a little ***** (hellinisti ka8ikaki). Any idea why?

BTW he did not call Orthodoxy evil but he said that orthodox nations should not belong to the new west he was trying to get the State Department to build.

Hungtington is considered a joke in the State Department. He is tolerated only for his former "brainstorming" of the containment policy.

[orange]

So what you're saying is that the largest minority on these particular lists (which aren't comprehensive or precise lists) is made of Islamic groups which may (or may not) be active and may (or may not) have a large membership, and may (or may not), pose a threat in some way to someone? Possibly. In at least some cases.

Meanwhile there are other groups elsewhere who may be killing lots more people but only people in the same or directly adjacent nations.

Is that right?

Ted's response (prediction): Stop it BFB! You're putting words in my mouth! I never said any of that stuff! Why are you calling me a racist! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Stop it! Stop picking on me!

[Ted Striker]

Hey orange,

I bet the best way to deal with this thread is to start a thread with my name in it, complaining about my posts! Clearly you are making this personal. Oh wait, my name isn't Winston. What's wrong, did you get beat up in school today?

And son, you ever talked to me that way in real life, (which I guarantee you wouldn't have the balls to do anyway) you would be crying your eyes out in pain.

You have absolutely no arguments so have been reduced to name calling and 4th grade emotional outbursts. Great.

Bugs,

That's hiliarious. Got alot of "may" in there.

And again, NOBODY has provided ANY sort of evidence WHATSOEVER that even comes close to denying my claim.

Show me a comprehensive list that says something different. I have yet to see it.

It's easy to be a hater WHEN YOU'RE NOT IN THE GAME.

Kudos to paiktis for asking tough questions regarding ethnicity and race.

[Ted Striker]

To answer Bugs

So what I'm saying is that --->

the largest minority on the 2000 list, and the MAJORITY on the 2001 list,

both of which ARE the most comprehensive or precise lists available, (I have YET to see a more comprehensive or precise list)

is made of Islamic groups which are active and have a large membership (in the case of the 2001 list, 24 out of 28 groups are Islamic),

and pose a VIOLENT threat to someone? In almost all cases.

Meanwhile there is ONE group (in Rwanda) that HAD killed the most people in Rwanda.

[Gibsie]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I do not understand why you're saying it over and over, making such an issue out of it. Okay, so there are more Islamic terrorists groups out there than anyone cares for... so what?

[Ted Striker]

Good question.

[Kropotkin]

religion is a pretty good cover up for intolerant beliefs. If you're a terrorist-group it's hardly 'cause you're an avantgard for pluralism and democracy. There's a need for something that can turn the demands and arguments of the group into objective and undebatable truths while those at the same time is highly normative.

It's a hell of a lot better argument to say "because God/Allah says so!" than "Because we say so!". It's all about giving legitimacy to a policy that's hard to defend trough the ideas of 'modernity'. That opens up for arguments and pluralism while it paradoxaly at the same time promotes some ideas over others.

In the good old days you had the objective historical materialism but that's have fallen out of favour and it doesn't include monetary support while Islam can.

[Ted Striker]

Well said Kropotkin.

Bin Laden, for example, has using Muslims for his own personal interests. He's perverted the religion and used it as his #1 selling point for new recruits.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Re: Why are muslims more prone to terrorism as a means to achieve their goals?

Originally posted by Monoriu
That's not even partially right. That shows a complete lack of knowledge of human history.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tong, Pal Pot, Mussolini, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and about several thousand more tyrants and invaders are not Muslims.

How can you use your lack of knowledge about Muslim Tyrant invaders to prove his lack of knowledge?

I was in a trip to Acco last year, and i learnt about several differnt muslim tyrants ruling Palestine at the time (Acco was a key city then) and they were just as brutal as Staling, Mao, Mussolini, Napoleon and so on.

The ruler that stopped Napoleon was by far much more brutal and tyranical.

Even when it comes to terrorism, the guy who bombed Oklahoma city, the IRA, the ETA, rebels in Columbia, KKK, Neo-Nazis etc are not Muslims.

The reality of the issue is that most Islamic terracts never make it to the news.

I hardly recall when was the last time that CNN or BBC reported terracts in Kashmir or India, even though Indian spokesmen say that they still occuer even during the Aghanistan War.

I also know how many terracts happen in Israel that don't get reported. Sure, the big ones with dozens of injuries are on CNN. But there was, until the Israeli incursions, daily terracts when the palestinian security foces, the tanzim and fatah, ambushed and shot at Israeli cars, or kindapped and killed Israelis.

Religious fanatics: Do you have any idea what the Spanish did during the medieval times? Crusades anyone? Thirty years war? Catholics vs Protestants wars?

But times were different then. Then it was prevalent in all countries.

The problem is that now, the western countries don't use terrorism to promote their goals. They might declare war, and might even hurt a nation, but not target people.

In the muslim world, terror is promoted by the religious institution, by the government and media, as a justified means to fight with the west.

Oil rich persian gulf countries, currrently suffer absolutely no injustice from the west. Yet, you'll find it difficult to find a country in which it isn't common knowledge that jews are evil vampires that drink blood and want to take over the world and firstly kill Islam. It is also common knowledge that the USA is forcing christianity aroudn the world and is forcing it's false culture which is highly immoral and sinful.

That's the difference between terror then and now.