Terrorism of today?

Good question and I wish I - or someone - knew the answer.

Hello to you all

From what i see the only thing behind the thinking of these people is hate and nothing but hate. When you hate some one you just become mad with passion of hating them and basically you loose your senses.

I wonder how many angles this will be dicussed by????

They believe they are following Allah's will and any Muslim who does not agree with this are not true Muslims.

Terrorism did not start with Islam and it has always been with us but today most of it is caused by certain Muslim groups but not all of it. While I was in Turkey I talked to many Turks and they could not relate to it at all and were horrified by it.

While in Istanbul there were several attacks by PKK,not in Istanbul. PKK is a Marxiat group from what I understand. Nepal has its share of Marxist terrorist and even Greece does. The intercity train I took in Athens had one compartment fire bombed when I was there. I was coming back from the Island of Agistri at the time and the whole compartment was burned out. The rain delayed my ferry ride back otherwise I might have witnessed it.

Of course we have the lone abortion bomber in the USA which is totally condemned by the mainstream churches. They are always loners with mental problems.
We had one porn store bombed in my city years ago but thank goodness nobody was hurt and then we had some attacks on a preacher by some neo-Nazi nut cases, they tried to shut him up by bombing his house. Simply terrorizing him into submission, didn't work!

To ask what causes this curse on society, that is complicated when it comes to motives. The number thing is to create fear in a community, nation, or individuals.

I wonder instead of pointing fingers we should instead care about those who have been affected by these acts-??


The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis helps support the belief that Timothy McViegh did not work alone. Read it before you make a judgement like hugoestr did.

http://www.jaynadavis.com/



Edited by eaglecap - 04-Jan-2008 at 20:07

Hello to you all

Historically thats completely untrue of the middle east. When was the last time Egyptians and Syrians actually fought in their own armies? East Roman Empire I think, after that the defenders of Egypt and Syria were Arabs, Persians (Ghulams) or Turks (Mamlukes & Ottomans). Only in the modern period (200 years for Egypt, 60 for Syria) have Egyptians and Syrians fought in their armies again.

Generally of course, don't take this as a hard rule.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 05-Jan-2008 at 08:17

Of course McViegh did not work alone, the system covered for him like they did for the JDL assasinations and terrorist attacks by considering them indivisual criminal acts rather than organized terror.

Dr. Stan might agree with this statment. I listen to Liberty Radio sometimes and many of the things he says is too hard to swallow.

http://www.radioliberty.com/

Some say that Timothy Mcviegh is still alive and was never executed- they claim he lives abroad somewhere now.

^ in particular the use of violence on a population, generally speaking violence on military forces is not terrorism.

So a suicide bomber attack on a public bus = terrorism ,while a suicide bomber attack in a army mess hall = 'unconventional' warfare.

The use of the word itself is also very political so i prefer to use it sparingly.

Edited by Leonidas - 06-Jan-2008 at 13:15

Originally posted by gcle2003     I would limit the use of 'terrorism' to violence against uninvolved bystanders, but otherwise I agree. I especially agree that, even so limited, 'official' armies have also often carried out terrorist acts.   I put in the limitation because I think it implicit in the term 'terrorism' that the goal is to terrify as opposed to defeat. I don't think it makes sense to say that either side in, say, the Battle of Lepanto or the battles of Manassas were engaging in 'terrorism'.

The goal is almost always to defeat and to terrify is merely a means to that end (hence my argument that terroism is a method) and so the vast majority of actions taken during the battle of Lepanto and many other battles could not be classified as terrorism as the intended affects were practical physical ones rather then psychological. However throwing the severed heads of fallen enemies at formations of enemy troops could easily be seen as terrorism according to the broad definition I have given, though I admit it might be more practical if we were to define it a bit more narrowly.

Regards, Praetor.