I think the problem is that we are difining the terrorists by only one of the labels they apply to themselves... basically help perpertrate the image that they want...

That is the problem I have with a lot of the media (and other people's) labels that they apply to these people. I think that US and Canadian media need to take a step back and become more specific in their labelling of these groups. We need to specifically define these groups, to avoid the generalizations, and more importantly to lose sight of the what the enemy actually is.

For example many have labelled the terrorists in Chechnya as Islamists, or Arab Terrrorists, or Muslim Extremists... but the problem is that none of these labels are acturate, and may be misleading. Look it's not a cliche that it is vital to know one's enemy to defeat him; so it is important not to mislead ourselves or others... So labeling them based solely on religion, detracts from many of the other vital issues that actually motivate the terrorists: Nationalism, Ethnicity, Culture, History, Economics, Crime, Revenge, Politics, etc. Or to put it another way, how proper would it be to label the IRA as a Catholic terrorist organization? Yes they are Catholics... but is that they're only or primary motivator behind their terrorists actions?

What a bunch of phooey.

-Rudey

Wasn't the point of the IRA to take Ireland back from the Protestants? Weren't they bombing Protestant targets? Correct me if I'm wrong here, you're a fellow citizen of the Commonwealth with them, so what was it?

I believe you're glossing over my question without answering it. So if these people do these things in the name of their Muslim religion, doesn't that make them Muslims? Sure, not great Muslims or even sane Muslims in the eyes of some of their fellows, but still Muslims.

I still remember that video of people dancing in the streets in Palestinian controlled territory after hearing about the WTC attacks. Are they not Muslims?

I stated that the only fair way to decide whether someone was Muslim or not would be to ask them. If they consider themselves Muslim, then they are. Would you be so arrogant as to think you could devise a better test? So many viewpoints exist on the interpretation of their scriptures that it boggles the mind. Because their interpretations are often different, does that make someone more or less a Muslim based on their interpretation?

If a Catholic is "more right" in their approach to their religion than a Baptist, does that make the Catholics Christian and the Baptists not?

The IRA was/is a Catholic terrorist organization because they target others based on their religion. They operate based on a creed of nationalist/religious material not unlike these folks in the Middle East and Chechnia (sp).

When we take all terrorist activity into account and notice that 99% of it is perpetrated by people claiming a certain faith, that should certainly be enough to turn your head. You're saying that it isn't. Please explain.

The problem in Ireland has less to do with Catholic vs. Protestant and more to do with England vs. Ireland. The Irish want the English to give up their control of Northern Ireland. The English happen to be majority protestant.

Yes, but they are Catholic terrorists are they not?

I believe the point I was trying to prove is that most terrorists are Muslim.

You were disagreeing with me.

I still am puzzled how you could disagree with that.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I am simply providing you with information.

The problems in Northern Ireland are less about religion and more about land. The Irish want their land back.

It's easier to motivate a people to fight/die, etc if they believe they are fighting for a higher cause/power.

This is somewhat outside the scope of the original argument. I agree that it's easier to motivate people to fight/die if they believe they are fighting for a higher power. Hence, the relation between Islam and terrorism.

The statement that people were disagreeing with was that most terrorists are Muslims.

I didn't even think that was debatable.

That was only part of it... much like the Chechans(sp) want autonomy from a state that is religiously and ethincally different. The goal of the IRA was partially to "liberate" the Catholics being oppressed by protestants. However underlying all of this is a strong undercurrent of Irish nationalism, and to a lesser extent cultural/ethinic tension... as the Protestants in the north were "imported" by the English to help them secure the land centuries ago. So there was a number of attacks directed at "Protestant" targets (leading to tit-for-tat between the IRA and the Provos), but most targets were of the "English" authority or colloboraters... to weaken support or infastructure.

Quote:

I believe you're glossing over my question without answering it. So if these people do these things in the name of their Muslim religion, doesn't that make them Muslims? Sure, not great Muslims or even sane Muslims in the eyes of some of their fellows, but still Muslims.

Yes some are doing these acts solely in the name of their perversion of religion... however we and most practicsioners of the religion realise that they adhere to a perverted form of the faith. So yes they are Muslims, in much the same way that members of the KKK are Christian, or Hitler was Catholic...

Quote:

I still remember that video of people dancing in the streets in Palestinian controlled territory after hearing about the WTC attacks. Are they not Muslims?

Maybe... could also be Coptic Christians. Okay lets say they were Mulsim... was their celebration motivated by anti-Christian feelings or by anti-American feelings? Or more likely they were celebrating that Israel's main backer and ally had been attacked... so I'd say a fair bit of anti-Israeli feelings motivated them....

Quote:

I stated that the only fair way to decide whether someone was Muslim or not would be to ask them. If they consider themselves Muslim, then they are. Would you be so arrogant as to think you could devise a better test? So many viewpoints exist on the interpretation of their scriptures that it boggles the mind. Because their interpretations are often different, does that make someone more or less a Muslim based on their interpretation?

Well yes if the identify themselves as Muslims, that is what we the world will percieve them as... however it imperative to realise that they may not be acting based solely on their religious denomonation. It is important to keep that perspective, and even more important to not simplfy or dumb-down the issue of their religion. We need to always bear in mind that those terrorists motivated by religious fanatism are religious fantatics, not simply followers of that religion.

Quote:

If a Catholic is "more right" in their approach to their religion than a Baptist, does that make the Catholics Christian and the Baptists not? The IRA was/is a Catholic terrorist organization because they target others based on their religion. They operate based on a creed of nationalist/religious material not unlike these folks in the Middle East and Chechnia (sp).

Well Catholics percieve themselves as the "right" interpretation of the Christian faith... however they do acknowledge that the Protestant religions are adherents of Christ and therefore Christians... just misguided.

The IRA didn't solely chose their targets based on religion... but many other factors... just as the Provos solely target Catholic targets. The problem is arises that if we believe that this (religion) is the sole reason behind an attack, we don't understand the enemy and therefore can't effectively counter the enemy. Much like the IRA the terrorists/insurrgents in Chechnya are at their most basic motivated by revenge, politics, ethnic/culture, history, and religion...

Quote:

When we take all terrorist activity into account and notice that 99% of it is perpetrated by people claiming a certain faith, that should certainly be enough to turn your head. You're saying that it isn't. Please explain.

99% of terrorist activity world-wide isn't perpertrated by followers of the Islamic faith... I'd say it's closer to 33% at best. Unless a lot has changed in the past year the greatest contributors to terrorist acts are still fanatical Communists (such as the Shining Path). Political Ideology terror has always been the largest percentage of terror since the turn of the last century, Nationalist terror acts usually took second, but now Religion has started to make a comeback as a source of terrorists - ironically roughly corresponding to the decline of the USSR.

Let's all remember that Muslim Arab fighters are fighting alongside Muslim Chechans because of religion and not nationalism.

Let's all remember that these aren't isolated people or groups. In fact today a high ranking Egyptian Islamic official said it's the duty of Muslims to fight in Iraq against Americans. These are groups that have grown - groups that were once killed in numbers of 30,000 by Syria but serve their state leaders' interests and are now allowed to grow.

Of course not all Muslims are like this but some Greekchatters have made this religion "untouchable" and make comments out to be what they're not. For example here is an editorial from the Kuwait Daily in support of wiping out terrorism http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD77504

-Rudey

An update on the hostage situation
 

Here is an article from the CBC.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...sis040903.html

At least part of the situation has reached conclusion as Russian Special forces stormed the school. Early reports indicate at least 7 dead, including 5 of the terrorists, and hundreds of undefined injuries. The rest of the terrorists escaped -- but some may be trapped in a nearby house.

Information was still pretty sketchy this morning as I was driving to work.

You have to say one things for the Russians, they don't mess around with this kind of thing. But a lot of innocent folks get hurt or killed as a part of their resolution to the problem.

It looks like they didn't have control of the perimeter of the building (seeing how so many terrorists were able to escape). They chose a frontal assault, weren't sneaky enough.

I think they could have done more to minimize casualties. I'm no expert on this, but I think they were just a tad too deliberate. I don't disagree with their decision to raid the place. I'm just not convinced that they couldn't have saved more lives. On the other hand, it was a gutsy call and I'm sure it saved lives.

I think the Russians don't have a grasp on stuff like this. In fact I think they see their citizens too often as dispensible as well. I simply would not feel confident in the Russian military ever coming to my aid.

-Rudey

Not being there, I don't really know if this is accurate, but it seems to be that the Russians have never had concerns for hostages in this kind of situation that you would find in other countries.

They appear to be more interested in a show of force.

On the other hand, one of the conclusions from the Columbine studies was that SWAT teams and other authorities waited too long to act decisively.

ETA, a major difference between here and there is that in this country, the situation would have been handled, at least in the beginning, by police agencies. In Russia, it's the military who are likely to be more aggressive. Of course we've never had a situation with this many hostages and this many terrorists, so it's difficult to know how it would be handled here -- by police or military.

Tough situations and tough decisions.