Palestenian-Israeli Conflict

My understanding is that individual mosques are independant, so if someone like Abu Hamza gets into a position of influence then he can only be removed by the mosque itself. Unlike the C-of-E (for example) you can't go to the Bishop because there is no equivalent hierarchy.
 
It depends on how you gauge success. Moderate Muslims are unlikely to sway those who are already extremists, but what moderate muslims can do is reduce the risk that more young muslims are subjected to extremist teachings. I think they are working very hard at that and its level of success wont be known for some time.
 
It's always worth pointing out how willing the American's were to turn a blind eye to groups in the US providing finance and weapons to the IRA, right up until 911.
 
I'd like to this so. I'd be interested to hear Sankaku's take on that.


Like the new avatar by the way S-J. That's much better ;-)
 
Learn how to parse English. I was saying that the only terrorism that is global in nature is Islamic. That does not preclude national terrorist groups, but groups like the IRA and ETA are NOT global, they confine their activities to their national borders. Islamic terrorism is the only kind that can be found around the globe.
 
Spanning the globe means found in every region of he globe. When active the IRA is confined to the British Isles, usually only Ireland. ETA is confined to Spain. Islamic terrorists are active around the world. Not in every country, but in every region. That is spanning the globe.

They are the most active and visible group.
 
sorry i misread i thought you originally said *not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims* whish is a saying that i have heard used in other situations. i apologize for misunderstanding.

still i don't think that islamic terrorism is a worldwide problem. there are huge areas and continents that have not been effected in any way.

the bottom line is i think people are giving these guys far more credit than they are due. barring 9/11 in real terms what have they done other than whip the populace and media into a frenzy. in spain 190 people were killed, this certainly is something terrible but more people are killed in spain in a year in traffic accidents. here in toronto they had a *plan* to blow some buildings up, but they would have never had a chance to acquire even the pre-curser without alerting the authorities. the only way they even got something that looks like the pre-curser is because they were being set up by the authorities.

in london 54 people we killed and they closed down transportation for a day.

this is not to say that these people are right or that we should not try to track them down. i am glad they caught this group in caanda and stopped them and i hope the same can be done everywhere else they exist. it is just that if you live in the west, the chances of you being effected by terrorim on any kind of serious scale is so so slight we should not even be worried about it.
 
i originally posted that list to show *most* terrorist groups out there are associated with islamic terrorism that list makes it clear there are 114 other groups out there 30 of which are based in islam.
 
not so the most active and visible groups are Christian State Terrorists,

they are active in all continents and have chemical and nuclear weapons,

why is that Christian Groups around the world are not doing more to condemn the actions of these State Terrorists.
 
While countries have not been affected, Islamist terrorist groups are active in the Middle East, America, Europe, Asia, the Philipines. That fits the definition of global.


So you define terrorism by number of victims by act? So if a terrorist group only blows up 2-3 people at a tiome, they're OK?

The Toronto group were just stupid. They tried to aquire too much, too fast. The fact that they aquired it from an undercover agent is because they were under surveillance. Anybody wanting to aquire ammonium nitrate can do so freely, in reasonable quantities without suspicion. I can go to a gardening supply store, especially in the more rural parts north of Toronto and buy a couple hundred pounds of the stuf without anyone thinking it was unusual.
 
Only if you subscribe to the view that countries can be terrorists. I happen to subscribe to the idea that soldiers in uniform acting on behalf of their government are not terrorists. I may not agree with their goals or methods,but it is still the actions of a sovereign state.
 
Because

A. It is not the expressed aim of what you call "state terrorists" to kill or torture civilian bystanders. Undoubtedly bystanders have been killed as in any war, but the fact remains they are NOT the target. If the actual targets of these military actions weren't hiding in civilian population centres then those areas would NOT be targeted.

The opposite is true of the ACTUAL terrorists. They deliberately seek out civilian populations as soft targets to inflict as much damage on innocent bystanders as possible, whether it is through explosives or kidnapping people to saw their heads off.



B. Ultimately, the objectives of the two sides are not the same. The ideal "Western" society is one of personal freedom and democracy, whereas as far as many Islamic Terrorists are concerned the ideal society is one under Islamic Law and ultimately that is what many of these groups are seeking worldwide. Sorry but that is not acceptable. It's a value judgement, but I believe that to be an inferior way of living and not one that any liberal Western culture can tolerate.
 
I'm sure we can all think of plenty of exceptions to this. Like the 'area bombing' of German cities by the RAF in WWII, for example.
 
Wow... this thread is still at it.

New Learner... bhwahahhahahah.
 
That's true but you're looking at circumstances that made the fighting on a very different scale. The Germans in World War II were fighting a "Total War". The production of the entire populace was geared towards the war effort, and ultimately towards the conquest of all of Europe including the UK. Given the massive threat to the entire country that the Axis posed, I would say that our government's responsibility was (as it should be) protecting the UK from the external aggressor, not protecting the civilian population of a country that largely supported the war against us. Hence, whatever steps that could be taken to end the war as swiftly as possible, should be taken.

I think what speaks volumes about our attitudes in the current situation is that we (as a nation) are always conscious of the effect any military action has on the surrounding populace, and often go to militarily very dangerous lengths to avoid collatoral damage, unlike those that we are fighting who do just the opposite.

It is useful that obviously these terror cells can never pose the same threat to our way of life as (say) 4 Divisions of Panzers, because that allows us the luxury of a more "softly softly" approach than, as you say, carpet bombing a city or two. However that is NOT an approach that we can take for granted as the people we are dealing with are, one-to-one, still very dangerous.
 
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that it was wrong. It was regrettable, but when I see pictures of the concentration camps etc. I would be happy if there had been fifty Dresden's if it would have saved one single Jewish life.

My point is quite simply that government forces are willing to target civilians if there are strategic reasons for doing so - reasons which they would regard as legitimate. Is there really any moral distinction between that and what terrorists do in the name of their cause - which they would see as equally legitimate?
 
i think you know that is not what i am saying.

i am simply stating that being worried about being effected by terrorism if you live in a western country is like being worried about being hit by lightning.
 
Hmmm. If you're asking whether under an abstract absolute morality the bombing in WWII is the equivalent of modern day terrorism, I don't know. But under our relative moral systems, what they do is wrong... the deaths of civilians in any case is never something to be celebrated, and should, by most people's standard, be avoided wherever possible.

That's something that I find hard to grasp about those who sympathise with terrorists... one of the only arguments against military action vs. terrorists is the civilian casualties that sometimes occur, and that becomes the cornerstone of the argument against Blair/Bush or whoever. Yet when discussing civilian targeted terror attacks, these are somehow often 'excused' by the political motivations of the terrorists.
 
Back
Top