Score another one for the religion of peace

#1

iol.co.za/news/africa/nigeri … -1.1204431

Why are 99.999% of all terrorist attacks worldwide in the name of Islam??? :fume:

#2

They aren’t. Prove your case.

#3

Because the Irish decided to talk more, fight less; the Tamils lost; the fighters in Aceh were wiped out by the tsunami; American militia men and Mexican drug gangs are converts; the Nepalese settled; the Shining Path… er… converted; those ‘price tag’ settlers are…n’t really ultra orthodox; Aum Shinrikyo is Japanese for Yea Caliphate!; and your math sucks.

#4

Hmmmm, 99.99999% was obviously with a bit of sarcasm. 99.9999 is probably closeser to the real figure.

Check the link below and work it out for yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ba … st_attacks :popcorn:

#5

Of course wikipedia is the absolute final word on everything.
In the case of that list, back to about 1972, I believe. Prior to which there was no terrorism at all.
:loco:

#6

Feel free to advise which entries on that list are incorrect.

Sure, the list could go back to 10 000bc.

For the sake of argument lets say the last 50 years.

#7

[quote=“bigduke6”]Feel free to advise which entries on that list are incorrect.
Sure, the list could go back to 10 000bc.

I am still quite sure that the vast majority of the terrorist acts, say in the last 50 year[/quote]

I am not taking a side about the statistics…

But how EXACTLY are we defining “terrorism” or “terrorist attack”.

That is important for the discussion (should it continue).

#8

Valid point. Lets say any event where civilians are deliberately targeted and civilians are killed as a result of this deliberate targeting.

#9

You mean like in Iraq? By the US military?

#10

Problem: This definition would seem to include acts by repressive governments against their own citizens, as in the Holocaust. Surely “terrorism” should include only acts against established governments (whether by private citizens or by rival governments), not acts by established governments.

#11

Um, we don’t “target” civilians. We target enemies, who unfortunately are near civilians. Just thought I’d clarify.

#12

I believe the original definition of terrorism was acts of terror by governments to their own people.

#13

You mean like in Iraq? By the US military?[/quote]

I do not believe this is US policy. Regardless of my opinion of the US in Iraq, they do not have a policy of targeting civilians.

Yes, there are incidents when soldiers murder civilians, and should be punished to the full extent of the law. I believe in many cases they have.

There is also collateral damage, which mostly occurs when fighters are hiding in the civilian population deliberately. Hamas is a prime example. Here the hope is civilians will get killed for PR purposes. Such deaths should be attributable to those hiding within the civilian population.

#14

Um, we don’t “target” civilians. We target enemies, who unfortunately are near civilians. Just thought I’d clarify.[/quote]

I agree we (the US) does not target civilians.

There is a problem, however. The line between civilian and terrorist (just being consistent in terms of terminology, could say combatant, insurgent, hostile, etc) is not all that clear.

In a setting like Iraq or Afghanistan, a person could be a civilian in the morning, who is related to terrorists, witness his terrorist level captured, tortured or killed, then become a terrorist that night.

The opposite is also true.

And it is even further problematized by the fact that often civilians and terrorists, in these settings are living in the same household, community, clan, etc.

But then are such people definitely NOT terrorists as they are targeting the US troops…who are not civilians. Though they may use tactics we associate with terrorism, (suicide bombers, road traps, etc) they would not be terrorists according to this definition because they are targeting US soldiers.

I don’t think its really an easy definition to hammer down. Are Palestinians who throw rocks at Israeli tanks terrorists? Or are only the ones who go into urban settings and cause harm to civilians terrorists? This is even sketchier to figure out as ALL Israeli citizens (I believe Arab-Israelis are exempt…) are not only required to do their military service when they finish high school, but remain on reserve duty until a certain age. They also must go through training every odd number of years (do not remember how many), so then, in a way, no Israeli citizen (except for the ones who never served) are civilians. Thus, it would be nearly impossible to target a civilian population in Israel and there could be no such thing as a “terrorist attack” in Israel.

:2cents:

#15

A post such as this, IMO, meets the established criterion for “troll”…

Mohammedan terrorism extends back to its beginning in the 7th century. It is a political ideology founded upon barbarism and conquest. Bloody roots and bloody ideology.

Do your research - it will ably demonstrate the history of this creed.
(as far as the U.S.A. is concerned - 1801 (some will note 1783 as the beginning) and the Barbary Coast Pirates was our introduction to the terrorism of Mohammedism.

The Cause and Solution of Terrorism

danielpipes.org/

historyofjihad.org/

Islam 101…one of the best resource sites.

Both the Qu’ran and the Hadith demand what is now known as terrorism. Against the infidel and against the apostates when they arise.

Using its own words…Islam and Violence

Do your own research…then decide.

#16

I would define a terrorist as an organisation or individual who targets a civilian population in order to kill or maim members of that civilian population.

Regarding Hamas, uniformed Israeli soldiers could be legitimate targets provided Hamas follows the Geneva convention.
Don’t think they even know where Geneva is.
Reserves not in uniform and not fighting should not be targeted.

#17

A post such as this, IMO, meets the established criterion for “troll”…
[/quote]

Does it? Who was the target in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

#18

A post such as this, IMO, meets the established criterion for “troll”…
[/quote]

Does it? Who was the target in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?[/quote]
The evil Japanese. How dare you ask that? :loco: All they have contributed to the world is Sushi, Sashimi, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Honda, Toyota, Karate, Judo, Ju-Jitsu, hello Kitty, cartoons and some fucking awesome porn. :smiley: What a failed society.

#19

I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. Any invasion of the home islands would have resulted in more civilian deaths, not to mention US soldiers deaths,

#20

Be that as it may, they still fall under your definition of terrorism