However, tiger's point is that if Muslims in those countries view civilians as not so innocent, then they can equate suicide attacks on civilians with Israeli attacks on Palestinians. One can argue the only difference is intent, but the result is the same - civilians are killed on both sides. Not saying I agree with that, I don't, but I can see how that point of view is manifested. If Muslims indeed do see these attacks as retribution for some attack on them, and that our hands are not free from blood...it does bring interesting questions to light. Take a hypothetical situation that removes the nationalistic and religious elements. Let's say earth is attack by some alien force. Maybe from Mars. And let's say they are colonizing us and we see them as a threat. Now, would bombing thier home planet be an act of resistence or one of terrorism - even if our goal was to hit their civilian population in retribution for "collaterally" destroying cities? I know, it's kinda silly, but when you look at it in different terms....I mean, how can 40% of some countries say suicice bombings against civilians are justified? Something is driving that and it's not extremism. From their perspective, we're crying foul perhaps with reason, but we've been playing foul for a long time. So what does that mean? Well obviously we can't allow these kinds of attacks to go on....but I do think we need a more visionary foreign policy that acknowledges the flaws of previous ones and seeks to acknowledge the grievances of those who have suffered from our policies. A little national humility would probably go a long way. I also think we need to refocus our armed forces in Afganistan and Pakistan, and leave Iraq. Don't worry, Al Qaeda will follow up out of Iraq and into Afganistan, they want to fight us, not Iraqis. And I don't think middle east peace can become feasible until a really great Muslim leader comes into being. Actually, a great Israeli and American one wouldn't hurt either.
meh...the main reason support is dropping for suicide bombings is because the predominantly muslim countries are now getting a 'taste' of the action. Jordanians for example were on the fence about the whole martyr thing, until some suicide bombers hit Jordan. It was amusing to see how national opinion changed....how dare you bomb us, we are muslims..... Ok, it wasnt amusing, but i think it points to how islamic terrorism was allowed to grow into the monster it is now. Issuing fatwas and newspaper ads is not going to solve anything
Strapping a bomb on yourself and walking into a crowed cafe is still an act of terrorism, whether you think it's justified or not is a completely separate argument. By definition, targeting of civilians is terrorism. It's done to inflict fear and intimidate to acheive a political agenda. Osamba Bin Laden was first trying to knock out military installations - one could say that wasn't an act of terror, but of war. The baracks, the U.S.S. Cole, maybe even the pentagon. But the World Trade Center? He wasn't hitting us to strike our ability to fight him, he was stricking us to terrorize us - quite literally. The Kamakazi pilots didn't die to inflict terror, they did it to take out a military target. They didn't fly themselves into skyscrapers. Again, this is by definiton: Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." Now, you are inherently defending terrorism - just make sure you realize that.
1. This is about killing civilians. You can't destroy evil. Evil has no substance. 2. "Good and Evil" are adjectives, not nouns.
Of course it is! Where did I say the targeting of civilians was NOT terrorism? I am probably more 'liberal' with my definition of terrorism than most people are, if anything. Most posters on this board go to lengths to define and re-define terrorism to suit their purpose. I subscribe to the most basic and general definition of terrorism, which is the "intentional targeting of civilians to further a political cause or bring about a favorable outcome through the use of force". Yes... [uote]But the World Trade Center? He wasn't hitting us to strike our ability to fight him, he was stricking us to terrorize us - quite literally.[/quote] Why are you stating the obvious? I know, but they did engage in suicidal missions...that's the point. No, you want to believe that I am defending terrorism, so let me waste even more time and illustrate what I already stated: Suicide bombing of U.S.S. Cole = not terrorism. Suicide bombing of any civilian target (pizzeria, hotel, mall) = terrorism The target of the attack is what determines whether an act is terroristic or not, not the weapon used. So you can use an AK-47 to kill a bunch of tourists in Luxor, that is still terrorism. It's really a pretty simple and basic distinction, but go ahead and twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean; like this... Not even close. But again, this is your s.o.p,: define the opposition in a way that suits your own argument.
Yes, I don't think anyone is saying suicide bombings are inherently evil. It's terrorism that people are talking about. "Suicidie bombings' refer to terrorist acts, not kamikazee attacks or suicide attacks against military targets. It's a colloquialism. Now, the poll should be reworded to avoid confusions, but I don't think the poll takers got the wrong meaning there, especially since "civilian targets" was mentioned in the question. So, do you think that terrorism is ever justified? Even if the cause is legitimate? And what on earth is with your whole "s.o.p." thing - got a chip on the shoulder eh?
That's the only distinction I was making... In common usage, yes... I am not even addressing the poll or the article now. But you're right, the article seems to indicate so. No, even if the cause is legitimate. And I extend this to sanctioned military operations as well, so it's independent of the actor.
Why? To me, the intentional targeting of civilians is terrorism; I apply this to state and non-state actors. "Terrorism" is a tricky concept because there is no universally-accepted definition that all countries have agreed to. So I just define it in the broadest sense. That's all; it isn't that complicated...
Yeah, that's all. Except you didn't realize that the poll was specifically talking about suicide bombing targetting civilians. So why on earth we are talking about this distinction? Perhaps you wanted some, any, rebuttal to Sir Jackie Chiles, who jabbed the Muslim community with his initial post.
What those in the West who don't know much about the Muslim world are hoping is that it's not irrelevant....they're hoping that MOST Muslims find it to be distasteful and "shocking" too. They hope that Muslims see the same value in human life that they do. I think that's just the perception...and I think Islam has some responsibility to bear for the creation of that perception...in the same way I think the Church has responsibility to bear for the creation of negative perceptions its helped create for itself. So I have a hard time grasping the notion that it's irrelevant. Particularly when they're not talking about fighting for land or indepedence or some greater political purpose...but that they're fighting to defend a faith tradition.
One of several simple answers (and there are more) is that it surely is an act of terrorism when the "military target" is not actively involved in a war against the attackers. The Pentagon could be considered a "military target", but I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism.
As I've said, I wasn't necessarily addressing the article, just making a general distinction that I thought was worth making. SJC? No...he's not worth a serious reply from me. He can take "jabs" at Muslims all he wants. What do you want me to do, call him a Nazi-sympathizer?
No, because they are a governmental entity. However, that does not mean that I think all their actions were legally or morally right. It has been pretty much established that they have overstepped their boundaries more than once in the past, to say the least. But this is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the shockingly high acceptance rate of terrorism within the Muslim community, especially in some countries.
