You misunderstood my question, so I will rephrase it for you..... Are there other forms of terrorism besides killing human beings?
frightening them. i know these answers i just want you to state things as if you were putting forth an argument rather than some sort of vague statement.
The goal of terrorism is always the same....it is always to support or oppose a certain political ideology. Although it often manifests itself in violence, there are other forms of terrorism, and much of it is state sponsored. The goal, however, always is the same....political change or political subjugation. My point is this....there is a great deal more terrorism going on in the world than just what gets covered by the media. The media covers the blood and guts form of terrorism because blood and guts sells newspapers and jacks up television ratings.
You obviously have no idea what I recommended. It is about Al-Qaeda not being as big and heirarchial as the media makes it.
ok so you are saying that we should watch the religious right as closely as we watch extreme muslims for terror? is this your ultimate point?
Plain, silly argument. So you are ultimately saying that all fundamental Muslims are terrorists? John Stossel says "Gimme a break!"
I've gotten into heated debates by calling out the likes of Robertson and Falwell as bad as bin Laden. Most of these acts of terrorism by the Right, are seen to be done by lone wolves, who seem to have no strong connection with any organized group. Whereas Al Qaeda or its local cells have had an active role or take credit from terrorist acts. To some extent, we've legitmized the like likes of Falwell and Robertson and we've welcomed them in the political process. Therefore, they have had no need to use the more violent tools of extremism. Imagine if the US decides to shut down the NRA and decides to have a nationally mandated registry. If all politicians adhered to a moderate and secular denomination, would the fundamentalists stand idle while the world around them changes? This political acceptance allows negative consequences that affects the lives of people home and abroad, such as the fundamentalist movement to destabilize the ME peace process with Israel and denying AIDS/relief to Africa to those who don't fit the moral qualifications. Perhaps I should blame it on the failure for other groups to rein in their influence, but those actions are done in America's name. The reason I see no difference between any fundamentalist is that our country has the power to influence others and they know we should uphold that responsibility rather than wielding it as a tool to uphold their self percieved religious responsibility. How much of our secularism has been shrouded by religious political influences? They're interesting bedfellows to the corporate elite to say the least.
I for one don't believe we should demonize Christianity or talk about how Christians hate us for our freedom because of the actions of a few misguided Christians.
