Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Following on from a discussion started in 'Most recited prayer ever', I thought I'd start a thread here on this topic.

Frederick rightly points out that the troubles in Ireland were 'sectarian'. However he contends that their aims were nationalist/unionist and not based on religious views/values. The possible exception to this Frederick states is perhaps the PIRA i.e. the Provisional Irish Republican Army, who were derisorily called 'provos' by the British Army and others, and even called 'The Rosary Brigage' by other IRA members - they were strongly associated with Catholicism and defending of the faith.

My contention is that sectarian is another name for religious division - we are talking of two sects within Christianity (viewed by others outside of the conflict) - but those within it view each other as wrong religiously. The Protestants see Catholics as following the devil's work and vice versa.

In my mind, attacking someone else because they follow a different sect is no different from attacking someone who has a different religion - both are attacking someone over their religous beliefs. The only difference is that sectarian violence makes much less sense to objective observers than clashes between religions (don't both Catholics and Protestants believe in Jesus who taught turning the other cheek?? )

Having briefly read up on the Provisional IRA, I can now see that in my previous posts when I talked about the IRA and Real IRA never being branded as Catholic Terrorists, I actually had in mind the terrorist acts carried out by the PIRA - I lived through the bombings in London and was quite close to two of them, one in Docklands and one in the City of London.

The contention is that the media never attaches the label 'Catholic' to the PIRA.

By contrast, Muslim groups that have political aims - US out of Saudi, ending the illegal occupation of Palestine (choosing my words carefully, illegal meaning against international law), ending the oppression of the Palestinians generally (eg collective punishments) - are readily branded Islamic Terrorists.

Those that carry out suicide bombings and target civilians are roundly condemned by Islamic clerics and authorities around the world - but the media reports on those that agree with the anti-Islamic practices.

But, more unjustly, when multiples more Palestinian civilians are killed by Israeli forces (which is also, in my mind, a terrorist act) - this is never labelled as 'Jewish Terrorism' in media reports - but rather acts of defence of a defenceless, weak and cowering State.

In many ways, this is probably a pointless debate - for me the evidence is apparent in the reporting, and those that choose to believe Islam is evil will probably do so despite what I say or assure them that the majority of muslims believe. They may see muslims in their day to day lives as ordinary peace loving citizens, but they will continue to believe the reports that Islam is intrinsically violent and evil.

From my perspective, credit is due to the people who see beyond the spin.

My contention is that just as Christianity should not be blamed for the acts of the PIRA etc, Islam should not be blamed for the acts carried out by terrorists.

Cheers,
Shafique

BTW - I take Frederick's point that the IRA is distinct from the PIRA - and the former did not want sectarian violience.

In my use of the terms, I used IRA and 'Real IRA' to denote the general terrorist campaign and the residual terrorist acts that have taken place recently. I see now that instead of 'IRA' for the former, I should have been more precise and used 'PIRA' instead of 'IRA'.

From Wikipedia:

The Official IRA did not want to get involved in what it considered to be divisive sectarian violence, nor did it want to launch an armed campaign against Northern Ireland, citing the failure of the IRA's Border Campaign in the 1950s. They favoured building up a political base among the working class, both Catholic and Protestant, north and south, which would eventually undermine partition. This involved recognising and sitting in elected bodies north and south of the border. The Provisionals, by contrast, advocated a robust armed defence of Catholics in the north and an offensive campaign in Northern Ireland to end British rule there. They also denounced the "communist" tendencies of the "Official" faction in favour of traditional Irish republicanism, and they refused to recognise the legitimacy of either the northern or southern Irish states.

Cheers,
Shafique

I think there is a huge difference in the types of terrorism and the groups associated with that terrorism Shaf.

In particular the IRA although self admitted terrorists they did what they did to make a point for their cause.

This type differs hugely to the for example 9/11 terrorist who did what they did in the name of Allah. They are twisted individuals who believe that "god" sanctions what they do and they do what they do in the name of God.

Get real Shaf, at least being an honest terrorist is one notch up from a bunch of fanantical lunatics who do what they do because its what Allah/God tell them to do.

With respect to Isreali/Palastinaian terrorists (on both sides) i would put them in the same camp as IRA Provos' etc, in that they do what they do because of a matter of principle, again in contrast to the Loony Islamic Terrorist.

arniegang wrote:I think there is a huge difference in the types of terrorism and the groups associated with that terrorism Shaf.

In particular the IRA although self admitted terrorists they did what they did to make a point for their cause.

This type differs hugely to the for example 9/11 terrorist who did what they did in the name of Allah. They are twisted individuals who believe that "god" sanctions what they do and they do what they do in the name of God.

Get real Shaf, at least being an honest terrorist is one notch up from a bunch of fanantical lunatics who do what they do because its what Allah/God tell them to do.

With respect to Isreali/Palastinaian terrorists (on both sides) i would put them in the same camp as IRA Provos' etc, in that they do what they do because of a matter of principle, again in contrast to the Loony Islamic Terrorist.

Arnie - you know I condemn all terrorists.

The kamikazee pilots though that their god sanctioned what they did, as did the Provisional IRA - they were defending Catholicism.

As for the perpetrators of 9/11 - do you think they carried out the attacks because of Islam's teachings, or did they do it because of some perceived injustice against people they sympathised with? Was it a clash of religions or an attack against an enemy?

They didn't attack the vatican - that is a symbol of Christianity - but attacked the US?

Suicide bombings weren't invented by Muslims - Japanese, Hindu, Tamil civilians have blown themselves up, all believing they were doing a good thing and that their reward will be with god.

The question I continue to pose is why we only see the label 'Islamic' applied to terrorist acts carried out by muslims?

Al Qaida were pretty clear their gripe was against injustices carried out and supported by the US. Osama bin Laden was just as religious as he is now when he was being trained by the CIA and being armed to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan - he turned on the US when they placed armed forces on Saudi soil - so for him it was political, not religious.

Yes, they do believe that when they fight against the agressors they are in the right. Yes they do believe that killing civilians is justified, using the logic that their enemies are similarly killing or supporting the killings of other civilians.

I don't believe in their logic.

I believe it would have been wrong to call the provos 'Catholic Terrorists' and I similarly think it wrong that 'Islamic Terrorists' are used for the same actions and same belief that they are doing God's work. Just because we all think the provos weren't doing God's work, does not change the fact that +is+ what they believed.

Cheers,
Shafique

Another point - the rise in 'Al Qaida inspired' attacks is interesting on many levels.

Are the young men and women sympathising and joining in just 'fanatical nutters' or are they 'honest terrorists' (borrowing Arnie's phrase)?

Those that think they are being brainwashed by mad mullahs into thinking Islam is at war with the US are missing the point. Arnie says that 'honest terrorists' are better than mad fanatics.

I presume an honest terrorist is one that has specific objectives - eg the re-unification of Ireland, the end of apartheid, the end of an illegal occupation by a foreign power etc.

My question is that those young men who say they are blowing themselves up because of injustices in Palestine - are they 'fanatics' or 'honest terrorists'?

In my mind, all terrorists are unjustified and are fanatics - but to those who make a distinction, aren't those who are fighting against specific injustices 'honest terrorists'?

How about the fighters in Iraq fighting against soldiers - are these 'insurgents' freedom fighters or terrorists? To me, as long as they are targetting the military, they are resistance fighters - and no different to resistance fighters in France during the German occupation (which reminds me that there were instances of suicide missions and the killings of civilians by resistance fighters in France in that period).

Cheers,
Shafique

You have moved the "goal posts" somewhat shaf my friend. In reply to your post Re "islam" i belive my reply stands.

The IRA provo's basically acted in the same way as the 9/11 in attacking gov/inocent people, but the diference was, they didnt in reality use "religion" as the main cause. It may have started that way back in the Irish Potato Famine era and subsequent upto the 70's, but in recent history the Irish terrorism aspect was not really over religion but governence.

You also sighted the Palastian/Israeli scenareo in relation to Islam and its comparrisons. Again, this is not terrorism connected with Allah as you well know, its about "possession of ground".

I do however agree with your comparrison regarding the Jap pilots in the Pacific war. However Shaf, really this was insignificant in terms of the damage they actually inflicted, and it was within the "arena" of war at the end of the day. It is not really a fair comparisson to the current loonatic element of Islamic extremist's that inflict death not only on themselves but countless thousands of innocent people.

You sight that OBL/AQ only seems to have a beef with the US. You know this is not true Shaf, not one group or country is safe from AQ, and yes that includes the majority of the GCC countries that pay AQ extortion money to leave them alone and in peace.

My point re 9/11 is really it is a documented fact, that the recording from one of the highjacker pilots in that his last words were ...................... you know what they were, and it wasn't "death to all americans because OBL said so".

At the end of the day Shaf, there must be an acceptance by Muslims in how non muslims/westerners etc etc view "the islamic terrorist" in that we just dont understand how religion can drive someone to that extreme, however deep their beliefs.

You are correct we dont draw the same comparrison to other acts of terrorism, because we can differentiate between an act of hate per se and doing it under the guise of "its god's will, god approves, god loves me, and i will be a martyr for all eternity".

I for one would have a micron more respect for them if they said "we just hate you fcukers and we are going to blow the sh1t out of your ass".

I'll respond to this thread in later, however I would like to ask
shafique to show me one example where the Tamil Tigers and the IRA ever used religion to influence their violence (do their members ever quote from holy books, do they claim that their fighting against the British occupation in the name of Jesus?) or how either of them are religious fundamentalist groups like AQ.

arniegang wrote:
At the end of the day Shaf, there must be an acceptance by Muslims in how non muslims/westerners etc etc view "the islamic terrorist" in that we just dont understand how religion can drive someone to that extreme, however deep their beliefs.

My contention is that it is not religion that is driving them. They are attacking an enemy that is oppressing/killing people who share their religion/nationality etc.

In that, they are no different from the PIRA, Tamil Tigers, Japanese Kamikazee pilots etc

All these people believed they were on the right side of their respective religions. If they believed this, then the accusation that their religion was behind the terrorist acts must stand for all of them.

The problem is that the focus is on the bombers quoting from the Quran and citing 'Allah' in their suicide wills. However, listen to the reasons they give for willingly giving up their lives - it is not because they hate Christians or all Americans/Westerners etc. It is because they believe injustices were/are being carried out.

If Japanese pilots thought they were going to heaven - is not their religion condoning suicide? If Tamil Tiger ladies thought they were abiding by their Hindu beliefs by blowing themselves up, how is this any different from muslim suicide bombers' delusion that they will be going to heaven?

How are they different from people who have misused the Bible to justify apartheid, pogroms, inquisitions, crusades etc?

The label 'Islamic Terrorist' falsely gives the impression that the main driver is religion - and my question is why this is the case when there are political objectives to their madness.

Osama telling the US to turn to God in his last message was only a small part of the speech. He unfortunately had a lot of legitimate gripes about what the US etc were doing politically and militarily around the world - and whilst there continue to be these injustices, he and his like will continue to attract people who want to fight these injustices.

Guantano Bay is having the same effect that internment had in Northern Ireland.

Frederick asks for proof that Tamil Tigers or PIRA used religion to justify their terrorist acts. I am not the one who are labelling their actions as based on religion - I am saying that in the same way they weren't labelled, 'Islamic terrorists' should similarly +not+ be labelled.

I contend that the PIRA were doing what they thought their religion allowed for - they were called the 'rosary brigade' by the IRA as a sign of their warped religosity. Tamil Tigers aren't all atheist, but are hindu and believe in reincarnation - my contention is show me where they thought what they were doing was wrong or against their religion. If it wasn't, then there is no difference.

But the main comparison will be with Japanese suicide pilots - they certainly were convinced their religion condoned them giving up their lives for emperor and empire.


It seems to me that Frederick and Arnie are saying that Al Qaida's main motivation is religion, rather than what they would say is a reaction to injustices they perceive being perpetrated against muslims. If they think people are being killed just because of their religion, I don't see why a reaction to that would necessarily lead someone to conclude the reaction was because of religion.

Perhaps I'm missing something? I believe all suicide bombers and terrorists are as bad as each other. Those that kill the most women and children should be condemned the most, regardless of belief, colour or creed. Unfortunately this does not happen in practice.

Cheers,
Shafique

First let me say that I do not support or condone Bin Laden or any terrorist acts (I won't tire in repeating this - there is no justification for targetting and killing civilians).

But I went back to see what Bin Laden actually said his motives were - just in case I had over-looked or misunderstood what he said his justifications were - perhaps it was religion that was spurring him on?

His speech in 2004 is given in full:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/ar ... iveId=7403


I quote a few extracts only to show that his logic and objectives are as valid as PIRA or Tamil Tigers - in that it is a reaction to what they all perceive as injustices:

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

....

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

....

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

etc.


Osama Bin Laden is not citing religion as the cause of the attacks - but the sight of women and children killed in Lebanon by Israelis. His logic is that if US women and children are killed, this may stop "the deliberate killing of innocent women and children by American policy"..

What is clear to me is that this is not cited as an 'Islamic' belief/doctrine - but quite simply one of revenge/retaliation or some warped belief it may prevent further bloodshed.

I know some may be offended that I have quoted Osama's words, but I felt the point of what he claims his justification was required to answer the points made about Al Qaeda having primarily religious objectives.

Cheers,
Shafique

Frederick wrote:I'll respond to this thread in later, however I would like to ask
shafique to show me one example where the Tamil Tigers and the IRA ever used religion to influence their violence (do their members ever quote from holy books, do they claim that their fighting against the British occupation in the name of Jesus?) or how either of them are religious fundamentalist groups like AQ.

If AQ motivations are political (for example Bin Laden says he does not hate 'freedom' - as he isn't targeting Sweden - but is targeting those who are oppressing 'his people') - then the question becomes, why are AQ branded religious fundamentalist and 'Islamic Terrorists'?

There are groups who believe that Islam should be prosletysed (sp?) militantly and a 'Khilafat' needs to be set up - many with Saudi backing - but the terrorist acts I've seen have been by groups who are sympathetic with Osama's reasons for armed struggle - i.e. the relief of the suffering of the Palestinians etc.

Arnie - the reason why the 'fxxxkers' don't just come out and say they hate us and want to blow us up is perhaps because they don't hate freedom as Bush would have us believe, but they believe they are doing what they can to combat American/Israeli etc killings of women and children. As Osama says, he isn't targetting the Swedes!

Cheers
Shafique

Shaf

I dont for one minute think you support terrorism or OBL etc. It is an interesting debate, no idea of support or condonement is assumed within this debate.

Lack of time today stops me form replying in full , will do later.

cheers

Shaf,

I agree with you 100%.

Next time there is a terrorist attack let's use their religion in front of the work "terrorist". If we say now "Islamic Terrorists" then next time a similar attack is carried out by the Hindus, Christians, Jews, Mormons, Budhists, Tamil, et. at. we'll call them "Hindu Terrorists", "Christian Terrorists", "Jewish Terrorists", "Mormon Terrorists", "Budhist Terrorists", "Tamil Terrorists", etc. etc.

As you know the press has to start doing it too.

It might be a while before we used all the religions (in the present state of affairs).


P.s. By the way, these have to be acts of "Terrorism" just like the ones allegedly being perpetrated by "Islamic Terrorists". Othewise, there is another whole "debate" about what is "Terrrorism" (but that was not your point). Just anticipating...

Concord,

Ok - happy for you to do that, and I will play along too.

I just thought it might be easier to treat all terrorists the same and remove 'Islamic' from 'Islamic Terrorists'.

We could start with the Burmese crackdown as 'Buddhist State Terrorism' then?

A couple of days ago we had civilians killed in Gaza - so that would be 'Jewish State Terrorism'.


Cheers,
Shafique

I almost forgot - Blackwater killings of civilians in Iraq = 'Christian terrorists'

There will be a special prize when we get Zoroastrian Terrorism!

Edit:
It's actually informative to read up on the Tamil Tigers - they don't have religious affiliations, but are the ones who pioneered suicide bombings.. according to Wiki:
According to Jane's Information Group, between 1980 and 2000 LTTE had carried out a total of 168 suicide attacks on civilians and military targets. The number of suicide attacks easily exceeded the combined total of Hezbollah and Hamas suicide attacks conducted out during the same period.

It will be interesting to see whether more recent suicide bombings have changed the balance.

I'm also not sure whether the Tamils are Buddhist or Hindu - the Tamils in Mauritius are Hindu, but they have a specific form of Hinduism which is different from mainland Indian Hinduism (i.e. there are Tamil temples and non-Tamil Hindu temples in Mauritius)

Tamil Tigers are fighting for liberation, but do target civilians as well - eg see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5253028.stm
When 15 aid workers were killed last year.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf,

I think you stop reading my entire post becuase I wrote,

Concord wrote:Shaf,

P.s. By the way, these have to be acts of "Terrorism" just like the ones allegedly being perpetrated by "Islamic Terrorists". Othewise, there is another whole "debate" about what is "Terrrorism" (but that was not your point). Just anticipating...

And I did it becuse I anticipated your next "argument" (see last two words on my previous post).

Surely, if any of the Burmanse, Christians, or Jews you mentioned blew themselves up and killed others, or flew planes into buildings, etc. then we'll call them Burmese, Christian and Jewish Terrorists.

Concord,

Ok - so we are limiting the discussion to suicide bombers.... I wasn't, but ok.

But to be fair, I used the example of Tamil Tigers because they did blow themselves up, and Japanese kamikazee pilots because they flew planes into targets (committing suicide in the process).

Also, I don't think that 'Islamic Terrorist' as a label is only applied to suicide bombers - hence I think it doesn't make sense to only limit the comparisons to suicide bombers.

I would argue it is more logical to see what the motivations are - Al Qaeda, for example, is saying they are carrying out the attacks against civilians because civilians are being killed by Israel with US/Western support. They aren't fighting against Christians or Europeans generally (as OBL says - they aren't targetting Sweden).

And we come back to my initial question - why call these guys 'Islamic'?

Cheers,
Shafique

PS - I'm enjoying this discussion, I'm stuck in the office on a Saturday waiting for my staff to finish producing some financial projections before I can write a report with them which is due on Monday! I've had enough of Sudoku and reading 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' by Gibbon - a rivetting read, but a tad long at 3000 pages

I saw the news banner that there was a blast that apparently killed 12 people in the Maldives.

Let's see what kind of terrorists these are called. Unless it was a cooking accident in which case they will be "Culinary Terrorists". It can get silly you know...

If the terrorist are islamic and someone calls them "Islamic Terrorists" is it a fact. It does not say that all muslims are terrorists.

Let us wait and see.

Concord's comments above make my point.

It is now acceptable to call acts carried out by Muslim as 'islamic'.

It may be that Concord meant to say 'if the terrorists are Islamists' (a term I don't like, but is better than 'Islamic' which tarnishes a whole religion)?

However, I expect a lot of people will not see a difference between 'Islamic' and 'Islamist'. And this is the fact that I am complaining about.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
It may be that Concord meant to say 'if the terrorists are Islamists' (a term I don't like, but is better than 'Islamic' which tarnishes a whole religion)?

No. It was not what I meant. If the terrorists are islamic/muslim what is factually inacurrate about calling them "Islamic terrorists"? It may be that the are not just Islamic, but also Islamists - and thus more "accurately" it would be to call them Islamist terrorist. Then we can separate them into Shia, or Sunny, or...never ending. Same with "Christian Terrorists" are they; catholic, protestant, lutheran, greek orthodox, pentecotal, etc. etc?

My point was that the fact that the terrorist's religion is mentioned does not mean that everyone in that religion is a terrorist. Which actually is the point you made for me in the above post by saying that it "tarnished a whole religion". I don't think it does...

Same can be said for all thing attributed to "Westerns" does it tarnished the whole of the "West". Not at all but it does in some eyes and ears.

Concord,

Just to clarify, you are saying that a terrorist who also is a muslim can be described as an 'Islamic Terrorist'. Are you saying this is a valid, accurate description?

Would a muslim who is addicted to drugs similarly be called an 'Islamic Drug Addict'?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Concord,

Just to clarify, you are saying that a terrorist who also is a muslim can be described as an 'Islamic Terrorist'. Are you saying this is a valid, accurate description?

Would a muslim who is addicted to drugs similarly be called an 'Islamic Drug Addict'?

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes and Yes - if indeed they are muslim. And if Christian, etc. (see the title of your thread) then they can be called Christian terrorist/drug addict, etc.

p.s. CNN, BBC, et. al. will ned to be convinced to change their reporting

I remember listening to a show where some of the commentators were saying "homicide bombers" instead of the often used term: "suicide bombers". Just a slight change but makes you think.

Just "to clarify" (in Shaf speak) what I am saying is what I am saying

Concord,

Thanks for the clarification.

If I agree with your logic for the sake of arguement, then the issue does become one of why other terrorists aren't labelled as 'Christian Terrorists' etc.

Which, I think, is the original question I asked.



cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Concord,

Thanks for the clarification.

If I agree with your logic for the sake of arguement, then the issue does become one of why other terrorists aren't labelled as 'Christian Terrorists' etc.

Which, I think, is the original question I asked.



cheers,
Shafique

I think Arniegang might have answered it but I am too lazy to look back but here is what I think.

1. Becuase the Muslims let "others" get away with it.
2. Because the "others" might have more control of the media.
3. Because there are less and less "non muslim" terrorists out there.
4. Because the tapes that some of the suicide terrorists have left behind involve their faith (Islam) - true these are fanatics but it makes for good sound bites. And it is simply the world we live in. By the way, I am relying on the translation for what they said on the tapes.
5. Because maybe there is no other religious group to which their religion can be attached except Ironically maybe jewish terrorists and I saw that term used in a recent CNN special ("God Warriors") - this is the part that Arniegang answered specially concerning IRA.
6. Becuase, unless and until, terrorists attacks stop being carried out by those who are fanatics (Islamists, etc) the decent Muslim world will be unfarily "labelled" so that it might be a task for Muslim to address than simply the labelling of terrorists.

The solution is not to find a label for other terrorists but to eliminate "terrrorists". Easier said than done...

Thanks Concord.

I agree with points 2, 4 and 5.

Disagree with point 1, 3.

Point 6 involves non-Muslim perceptions of Islam and muslims and the actions of terrorists.


It may just be semantics, but I don't have issues with the label 'Muslim extremists', 'muslim terrorists', 'muslim fanatics' - these are accurate descriptions.

However, 'Islamic' means influenced or condoned by the religion - eg 'Islamic Art' is not just art created by muslims, as there are Muslim artists who create art in the style of Modern Art and whose work would not be termed 'Islamic'.

Maybe it is because 'Christian' or 'Jewish' etc is used for both 'Islamic' and 'Muslim' connotations (i.e. as pertaining to the religion and meaning a follower of the religion).

I take exception to 'Islamic Drug Addict', but not to a 'Muslim Drug Addict'.


Anyway, perhaps I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill - I'd be interested in what others think.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

The IRA never defined or justified themselves on the basis of Catholicism, whereas the organizations that you noted clearly do you sharia as part of the basis for justifying their actions. Those who pursue violence because of Christian beliefs (ie: Joseph Koney) are labeled as such.

The problem is that the focus is on the bombers quoting from the Quran and citing 'Allah' in their suicide wills. However, listen to the reasons they give for willingly giving up their lives - it is not because they hate Christians or all Americans/Westerners etc. It is because they believe injustices were/are being carried out.

I strongly agree with this, but would still classify them as Muslim terrorists. While most Americans are woefully ignorant of why various terrorists groups are blowing people up and should be far more intently focused upon the political causes of these conflicts, the fact remains that this is a form of religious terrorism as secular goals are being advanced by religiously-sanctioned techniques in a religious context.

If Japanese pilots thought they were going to heaven - is not their religion condoning suicide?

Which is why Shinto was considered to be a key aspect in the WWII Japanese war machine.

If Tamil Tiger ladies thought they were abiding by their Hindu beliefs by blowing themselves up, how is this any different from muslim suicide bombers' delusion that they will be going to heaven?

The difference lies in the Christian Tamil Tigers. Care to point out the Christian authorities in Al Queda or Islamic Jihad for me? No?

LTTE is a secular organization, and states as much. While most of its members are Hindu, not all are, and its philosophy is based on race and secession, not religion.

The label 'Islamic Terrorist' falsely gives the impression that the main driver is religion - and my question is why this is the case when there are political objectives to their madness.

Again this I will certainly agree with. Personally I prefer the term Qutubism, as it draws upon the political and religious factors involved without as much ambiguity or misrepresentation as other labels.

I quote a few extracts only to show that his logic and objectives are as valid as PIRA or Tamil Tigers - in that it is a reaction to what they all perceive as injustices:


Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html

Osama bin Laden was just as religious as he is now when he was being trained by the CIA and being armed to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan

We did NOT support Bin Laden and the Arab Afghans. That was Saudi Arabia through funds funnelerd in through Pakistan on order by the CIA.

I think another key aspect of difference between the provisional IRA and AQ is that AQ is international and not predominantly national like the provo's.

For example in Ireland there was never a case of a Spanish Catholic or Brazilian Catholic or Italian or any other nationality fighting British troops on the streets of Belfast based on religious denomination. It was not a case of fight the British for their atrocities against the catholic world. It was more a case of fight the brits out of our land and out of occupation.

With AQ its quite different. For instance you may have an English guy fighting alongside a Egyptian - they are fighting on the basis of their religious conviction and atrocities against the ummah despite nationality or country.

I can however see your concerns with the term 'Islamic terrorist', but using the word catholic terrorist for the provos is incorrect - they were predominantly fighting a nationalistic dispute more then a religious (seen as occupation). It was a more a case of a bit of religion invariably spices up war and gets the ranks more passionate.

This is the situation that you now have in Iraq. Insurgents on the whole see the war as them fighting against occupation, however the US administration love calling them AQ as it justify s matters

Frederick,

Thank you for your post - it is well reasoned and I agree with what you have written.

I also do not have an issue with the term 'Muslim Terrorist' and agree that 'Qutubism' may be a more accurate description - the Muslim Brotherhood have a lot to answer for.

I feel I've probably said all I can on this subject, but thank you again for your insights - it led me to read up a bit more on the IRA and the various break-away factions etc.

Jabba - you make your points quite clearly as well. Yes AQ have foreign fighters, but AQ are fighting what they see as oppression against Muslims as opposed to fighting 'for Islam'. AQ fighting against occupying forces are not terrorists (at least not by my definition) - and labelling 'insurgents' as terrorists is another debate altogether

Cheers,
Shafique

Well the whole term 'terrorist' is more a term used to label near on anyone who opposes US and UK foreign policy.

Its this whole war on terror which is eroding the civil liberties in he UK as the terrorist acts of 2000 and 2005 and the incredible US patriot act (president can call Marshall Law, in effect start a police state).

So far they have managed to arrest some serious terrorists mind you;

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/ ... 356033.ece

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/st ... 93,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 579334.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/sto ... 90,00.html

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/58737.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/200601090004

There are quite few more, but I will end up filling the page up with links.

I don't know about you - but coppers never looked like this when I was a kid;



http://prisonplanet.com/articles/septem ... tality.htm

shafique wrote:AQ fighting against occupying forces are not terrorists (at least not by my definition) - and labelling 'insurgents' as terrorists is another debate altogether

Hmmmm, the minority take on the occupying forces, the majority shoot and bomb civilians because of, well, whatever reason they think up that day.

Didn't read all the lengthy posts but the situation in Northern Ireland is not the same as Islamic terrorism, the Republican movements (the clue is in the title) had one aim - to get the British out of Northern Ireland and reunite Ireland. They were terrorists who happened to often be Catholic as that's the prevailing religion in the south, though not all ROI citizens are Catholic, a certain Paul Hewson being a high profile example of a Protestant (that everyone assumes is Catholic) that supports Irish reunification. As also said, the acts were never committed in the name of God.

As for jabba never having seen police like that when he was young, I saw more riot police growing up fighting strikers, hooligans and the like! They're all body armour and no action these days. We just don't see enough water cannon action on our TV screens