History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedTerrorism of today?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
anum View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 14-Dec-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 92
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote anum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Terrorism of today?
    Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 20:42
I have still yet to understand what is the source of terrorism today in the world. It is clearly not any religion. I have been studying islam for the last 3 years under the leadership of a famous muslim scholar and i have yet to find a thing that justifies any kind of terrorism that we see today. My question then is what do these terrorists read and what do they beleive in? How do they justifiy their acts, especially the sucide bombings tactics that not only kills them but many other innocent people.
 
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.


Edited by anum - 01-Jan-2008 at 20:43
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 20:45

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

There's a case to be made though that the terrorist is a terrorist first and finds a cause for himself afterwards.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 20:55
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


There's a case to be made though that the terrorist is a terrorist first and finds a cause for himself afterwards.


A time tested case.



Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 21:18
Hello to you all
 
Well, first you need to define terrorism then you can start searching for why terrorism happens.
 
For certain governments,The Contra were freedom fighters so as Mujahedeen e-Khalq yet Hamas is a terrorist organization while the PKK is in between. So, everything is relative and you just can't determine who is the terrorist can you?
 
But one thing you can be sure about, terrorism is definietly political, it has nothing to do with religion or culture, it is for pure political reasons. The problem is how to convince people to do terrorist acts, some use religion, others race, a third group uses economics etc.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2008 at 21:57
I'd lack of resources is the cause of terrorism.
 
You dress a terrorist up in a uniform, put him alongside 100,000 men, give him tanks and planes, and he's a soldier
 
Or visa versa you take the above away from a soldier, he's a terrorist.
 
Purely available resources, its the only difference between war and terrorism.
 
 
 
So the question moves on to what causes war? And the answer, I guess would go along the lines is, no common cause throughout history.
 
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2008 at 20:00
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
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
ulrich von hutten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Court Jester

Joined: 01-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 3666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ulrich von hutten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2008 at 21:58
I know, it's abit Off-topic, but if you are looking for terrorists, just visit a Kindergarten or a birthday-party of some 5 year old monster..

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2008 at 22:03
Hello to you all
 
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.
 
One of the reasons why groups tend to use terror is weakness. Americans and to some extent Jews do not need to go to terror because they have strong governments that commit terror in the name of military operations or defense of the home front. But muslims, Sikhs, Armenians etc. all used terror because let face it, they will be crushed in any military confrontation. Believe me, if the situation was reversed, you will see exactly the same situation but different roles.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
afghan1 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Jan-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote afghan1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2008 at 06:18
i really really think any kind of violence stems from culture rather then religion. Historically the people of Middle east and people of my country afghanistan have always been a violent people. We start hating people so easlily, fighting is in our blood. Unfortunaly religion is used just as a tool to hide the violent side of our cultures.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2008 at 08:16
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
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2008 at 10:53
Depends a bit on your definition of the middle east. When I was growing up, Egypt & Syria (& Palestine and Lebanon, Turkey and Greece) were 'near east' not 'middle east'.
 
I've frequently been puzzled why this changed. No-one seems to talk about the near east any more.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3264
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jan-2008 at 22:14
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.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 01:21
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I've frequently been puzzled why this changed. No-one seems to talk about the near east any more.


It is to give a larger acceptation of the region including Iraq and Iran.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 08:27
I hate conspiracy theories but in the case of McViegh, there are just too many questions that have not been answered.
 
I do believe that McViegh did it on his own, that is he was not sanctioned but to leave those people who provided him with all these explosives is just too scary. These people could be at the top and can do many oklahomahs.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 11:56
many people seem to be under the impression that terrorists are all from guerrilla organisations and have a common set of values (though they must all have at least one belief in common).
However I would propose that terrorism is simply a method used in war or other armed political conflict as this definition can attest to

Originally posted by dictionary dictionary wrote:


1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.


under this definition pretty much every armed force has been a terrorist organisation at one point or another, from Assyria, to the Mongol's, to American's ("shock and awe" anyone?). Its not just the angry suicide bomber that is the terrorist but the professional soldier with the M16 as both are willing to use violence or the threat of it to intimidate or coerce for political ends.

Regards, Praetor.


Edited by Praetor - 06-Jan-2008 at 14:44
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jan-2008 at 13:10
^ 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
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2008 at 06:59
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

^ 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.


According to the definition I gave (not saying you can't use a different definition) it doesn't matter whether they are military targets or not, besides which the majority of significant armed forces in history have at least at one stage directed such methods against civilians or/and the general population intentionally (including my three examples).

my main point is that Terrorism is a method of psychological warfare used by all kinds of armed forces.
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2008 at 15:53
 
Originally posted by Praetor Praetor wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

^ 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.


According to the definition I gave (not saying you can't use a different definition) it doesn't matter whether they are military targets or not, besides which the majority of significant armed forces in history have at least at one stage directed such methods against civilians or/and the general population intentionally (including my three examples).

my main point is that Terrorism is a method of psychological warfare used by all kinds of armed forces.
 
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'.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2008 at 17:22
Originally posted by anum anum wrote:

How do they justifiy their acts, especially the sucide bombings tactics that not only kills them but many other innocent people.
 I would like to recommend this boook
 
 
It examines Islamic, Christian and Jewish religous based terrorism.  All three share some core psychological traits including...
- A desire to restore the "glory days"
- need to eradicate things preventing the restoration
-terrorists are members of an elite group with special understanding of their religion, have been called by God for special missions, actions etc
-Action must be taken now!!
-Absolute views (Those not with us are against us) 


Edited by Cryptic - 07-Jan-2008 at 17:23
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2008 at 14:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

   
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.
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.218 seconds.