Hello friends,

I was reading yahoo news on the last New York foiled Car bomb and got this remarks


"Not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorist are Muslim,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_ot/us_times_square_probe this remark was made by a commentator in the link.

this provokes meditation.


Is it true?

I think the topic should have read "Not all Muslims are terrorist but majority of the terrorist are Muslims.

huh, may the mighty Lord forgive us all. Cos terrorism is not a talk of religion, its rather a talk of personalities.

smh. was timothy mcveigh who bombed the oaklahoma city building muslim? are the irish IRAs muslims?

What is Terrorism? Who decides who is a Terrorist? Are people fighting to rid their homeland of invaders terrorists? Are people fighting to rid their country of corrupt governance terrorists? Are you a terrorist if you are willing to die for your country. Are you a terrorist if you are willing to kill for injustices perpetrated against your people? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Romeo4real:

What is Terrorism? Who decides who is a Terrorist? Are people fighting to rid their homeland of invaders terrorists? Are people fighting to rid their country of corrupt governance terrorists? Are you a terrorist if you are willing to die for your country. Are you a terrorist if you are willing to kill for injustices perpetrated against your people? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

This is simplistic in my opinion. There are methods that most thinking people agree on as unconscionable bad. I agree the circumstances under which the "fighter" finds himself do matter. Thus, many will find it possible to find more than a semblance of difference between a Palestinian and an Al Qaeda operative. But there are a whole of other issues to consider. In any case, most of the terrorists around today are not all that hard-pressed. These are mostly religious megalomaniacs too drunk to see the distance between them and God.

This is simplistic in my opinion.

No it isn't.The phrase is intended to highlight the fact that not all "terrorists" are equal. "Terrorist" is a term used injudiciously and extensively in the media today. The various definitions of terrorism would encompass anybody fighting for anything - It encompasses people fighting for their homeland, religious fanatics, white supremacists, revolutionaries, liberation fighters, and war mongers.

Unfortunately though, the media in collusion with Western powers have subliminally linked it to various people fighting their neo-colonialist and imperialistic ambitions - Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. Even the terrorists labeled as islamofascists and religious fanatics are fighting for their homeland and their way of life. There is no difference between a Hamas fighter and an Al Qaeda operative. Both are fighting invaders in their homeland. Foisting democracy and western ideals on people at the point of a gun, Invading a foreign land,appropriating their resources for yourself, demarcating their boundaries, and subjecting it people to "Shock & Awe" - Now that is terrorism!

Articulating what is Terrorism in its entirety is a good idea, is it only liken to religion?

huun

Romeo4real:

No it isn't.The phrase is intended to highlight the fact that not all "terrorists" are equal. "Terrorist" is a term used injudiciously and extensively in the media today. The various definitions of terrorism would encompass anybody fighting for anything - It encompasses people fighting for their homeland, religious fanatics, white supremacists, revolutionaries, liberation fighters, and war mongers.

Unfortunately though, the media in collusion with Western powers have subliminally linked it to various people fighting their neo-colonialist and imperialistic ambitions - Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. Even the terrorists labeled as islamofascists and religious fanatics are fighting for their homeland and their way of life. There is no difference between a Hamas fighter and an Al Qaeda operative. Both are fighting invaders in their homeland. Foisting democracy and western ideals on people at the point of a gun, Invading a foreign land,appropriating their resources for yourself, demarcating their boundaries, and subjecting it people to "Shock & Awe" - Now that is terrorism!

I think we are agreed on the fact that not all “terrorists” are equal. And historically liberation groups have been labeled as terrorists. Indeed, one man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter, but that in no way detracts from the fact that they are involved in the reprehensible act of terrorism.

Moreover, you are on shaky ground when you attempt to perfume a terrorist fighting against oppression irrespective of the method he adopts. Perhaps you know of the “homeland” invaded by the West that the Islamofascist group Al Qaeda was fighting to liberate. And how did the activities of the GSPC, the GIA and FIS further their agenda of overthrowing the government of Algeria and installing a Shari’a state, or, as you would put it, their struggle for their homeland and their way of life? What other motivation does the Abu-Sayaff have besides the realisation of an Islamic enclave where Quran is Constitution? For your argument that one militant group, say, Hamas, is not different from another, say, Al Qaeda, to stand up, you will first have to put up a convincing argument that the major motivation behind terrorism carried out by Islamist groups is politics and not religion.

The definition of terrorism should encompass anybody fighting for anything depending on the method he adopts. Terrorism is objectively defined by the method adopted, not the course. This is what the respectable media houses generally do nowadays. It is not usually subliminal. Admittedly, defining is not always clear cut. So like you rightly noted on linking or labeling, the apartheid government labeled the ANC a terrorist group. There were “experts” in the West who shared this view because, starting from 1961, the ANC did use violence. There were others who felt differently because the ANC never had a policy of attacking people. Its campaign was “sabotage”, whereby it attacked state installations, always taking reasonable care to avoid human casualty.

The same generally went for the ETA (Spain) and the Provisional IRA. They planted bombs at public buildings, institutions and businesses, but often gave warnings, even though, in the case of the IRA, inadequate warnings and premature explosions sometimes led to civilian casualties.

I have listened to speeches and interviews by Hamas leaders such the late Ahmed Yasin and Dr Rantisi. Said Yasin once, “why are they [the West] calling us terrorists? Have we ever attacked them? Did we attack anyone other than those who occupy our land?” And he is right. While I consider Hamas a terrorist group because they carry out attacks intentionally targeted to murder civilians, I cannot place them in the same category as others. The same goes for the terrorist group Hezbollah which was formed largely in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.

The ETA, IRA and Hamas are terrorist groups, but they are different, both in agenda and method, from groups like Al Qaeda, the GSPC (now called Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb) and others. Al Qaeda will highjack a plane and fly it into landmark buildings, planning in a manner that will kill the most number of people. One can imagine the massive o[i]r[/i]gasm experienced by bin Ladin and Zawahiri whenever they watch video clips of people burning and jumping to death. GSPC operatives once sneaked into a school dormitory at night and slit the throats of schoolboys sleeping on beds outside Algiers. These are Sunni Muslims contributing their widow’s mite to bring about the fulfillment of that spectacular prophecy that the entire world will one day be converted to Islam. There are even some who don’t pretend to have political objectives, such as those ones in Pakistan who revel in killing Shi’ites, Hindus, Christians, just about anyone. Consequently, from the viewpoint of course and that of method, these groups leave nothing to desire. They stink to high heavens. Moderate Muslims generally reject them, even though they, unfortunately, often don’t speak out enough or on time. Their leaders want to Islamise the world and their foot soldiers want to die to claim their reward. “You love life, but we love death”, said one. And so young men are being sent to their death under the belief that they will be rewarded in paradise. In some cases, families are also rewarded here on earth, as it is reported Saddam Hussein used to pay $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Even if the “oppression” argument advanced by you and others were true, does it justify terrorism? Let’s compare the Islamic world to the Black and the African world. Historically and at present, these have suffered the greatest injustice of the West. It started from the age of enlightenment, a time that brought about western civilization but also birthed the “enlightened” philosophers who provided the intellectual grounds for defining blacks as subhuman, leading to the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. You know the story, including the inhuman conditions of the slaves in the plantations in the New World. The slave trade ended after over 400 years, but what followed? Colonisation in Africa and Jim Crow in the United States. The atrocities committed by King Leopold of Belgium in Congo are on their own sufficient to ignite a thousand years of terrorism, going by Middle-Eastern standards. Then came apartheid. Are we talking historical injustice only, in which case forgiving and forgetting would have taken care of it all? No!

I will not here go into details of the present trade injustice and exploitation of Africa’s mineral resources, to say nothing of the secret dumping of industrial and nuclear wastes. You probably heard of those protests by Africans in Westminster some years back when it was found out that while British diplomats were helping to bring the warring parties in Congo to the negotiating table, British companies were the main arms supplier to both sides, with, of course, the knowledge of the British government.

Even the Arabs have done their modest best. Remember the trans-Sahara slave trade? Today, in the 21st Century, Arabs still carry out raids and enslave blacks in Sudan and Mauritania. And there is Darfur.

So why are Africans not planting bombs in shopping malls and school busses? Would Martin Luther King Jr have been justified to plant bombs at the Lincoln Memorial or Harvard University campus?

First of all, I do not believe bin Laden was responsible for September 11. Would he have loved to be responsible? Hell yeah! But was he? Hell no!

I do not condone killing anyone for many reasons other than as punishment for murder.

Both Romeo and MyJoe have some valid points but I think you both may be wrong about some things. Anyway, I'll just give my two cents.

Human beings are human beings but our races have character. Arabs and Israelis (or Jews if you like) are so alike it's ridiculous. They are a stubborn, malicious, unforgiving, bloody people.

Oh any, if I start this, it'll be too long. To be continued. I wan go sleep

Do you have a proof that its not him?No let yankee hear this one oo, lol

My Joe – Whilst I don’t necessarily disagree with some of the points you have raised, i would have to expand it much further. The definition of terrorism would encompass any act of war, insurgency, rebellion, or liberation. There is no distinction between methods used, agenda, or the ideology.This goes beyond much more than the Western government/media would like us to believe today. They have effectively perpetrated a very effective subliminal propaganda war. Reprehensible actions are not only limited to insurgents, freedom fighters and rebels (read Terrorist).

History is littered with abhorrent acts of torture, rendition, massacres, genocide, targeted assassination, and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by legitimate institutions and governments all in the name of “Fighting terrorism” and expounding political and democratic institutions. This highlights the issue I raised earlier – WHO, or WHAT  is a “Terrorist”.

QUESTION - Is the USA a terrorist state for obliterating 2 Japanese cities on a false pretext? For creating a radioactive wasteland and leaving a cancerous legacy for its people? For fomenting a war of aggression on another sovereign state based on a Christian fundamentalist ”calling from God” and a manufactured pretext?

QUESTION - Is the USA a terrorist state for atrocities perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan? For carrying out routine extra-judicial targeted assassinations? For using indiscriminate use of Depleted Uranium ammunition, causing 25% of all new born infants to have deformities? For A10 Warthogs gunships pounding innocents on the ground? For routine killing of Women and Children labelled as “collateral damage”? For allowing CIA predator drones to target whole compounds on the assumption that one Al Qaeda operative is there? For indiscriminate shelling of wedding parties with Hellfire missiles?

Q[b]QUESTION[/b] - Is the USA a terrorist state for fomenting a war for political gain in Vietnam?  For a war that claimed the lives of over a million Vietnamese? For the contamination and deforestation of Vietnam using Agent Orange? For the Agent Orange still causing cancers in Vietnam today? For the Mai Lai massacre, for which no one has been brought to account? Is the USA a sponsor of terrorism for funding and training the Mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan? The PPK against Saddam in Iraq? Saddam Hussein against Iran?, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) against Iran? Is the USA a terrorist state for its use of the CIA and various other State Departments and Intelligence Agencies to foment terror and destabilise various countries for commercial and political gains? – See below.

Iran - CIA overthrows Mossadegh, and replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran.
Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.
North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam.The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. This eventually culminates in the Vietnam War.
Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections, using a local proxy. This lead to actions that eventually culminated in quarter of all Laotians becoming refugees, many living in caves.
Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He is private police force,
Cuba (The Bay of Pigs) — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba in a prelude to a CIA take over of Cuba.
Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930.
Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.
Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.
Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega.

Is the USA a terrorist for all these things? Are Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Pearle, George Bush, D. Cheney all terrorist s and war criminals?

Perhaps you know of the “homeland” invaded by the West that the Islamofascist group Al Qaeda was fighting to liberate.

AQ was creation of the CIA. It was formed from the remnants of a loose alliance of the Mujahedeen and various rebel Afghan factions that the CIA created and funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
After the Soviets defeat in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden and his group offered his services to the Saudi government for help in countering the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud refused this help and opted for the Americans. This led to the establishment of US bases in his home land , the Holy Land - Saudi Arabia, something Osama greatly despised, and regarded as abhorrent. He spoke out against this, and was subsequently banished to Sudan.
This was the beginning of the Al Qaeda ideology – To rid all Muslim and Holy Lands of any foreign/ western troops, by the only means available to him – Guerrilla warfare, and hit and run terrorist acts.

Whilst there is a clear religious ideological agenda present in “terrorist” groups like Abu Sayyaf. GSPC, the GIA, and the FIS, it is not that simple. The GIA was a non violent Islamic Organisation, until the Algerian military junta voided a victory won by the Islamic Salvation Front, in the legislative elections held in December 1991.

You can see the common thread emerging in these organisations. They are all fighting governments they see as corrupt, and whose ideology is more aligned with western interests.  They are also fighting governments that they perceive as committing injustices against fellow Muslims everywhere – Russia, USA, UK, Germany, Spain , and various western governments.
Whichever way you look at it, the origins are in religious ideology. The USA and UK are predominantly Christian.  Bush and Blair have both claimed divine responsibility in their justification for Iraq and Afghanistan. They have both claimed contempt for the culture and way of life in these countries; subsequently, not only the Muslims are fundamentalists.

What is clear is that religious ideology is inextricably linked to political ideology. Religious views will always tend to shape political agenda. Just examine the IRA to prove this point. But lest we forget, the origins of the IRA are steeped in ridding their country of British colonialist rule. They have fought British Empire in various forms and guises since 1919

Of course, all “terrorist” groups have relatively different agendas and adopt varying methods to achieve it, but they are all broadly the same. They are all fighting for what they perceive as a foreign occupation of their lands, imperialist ambitions in their countries, injustices against their people and kin, western influences against their way of life and encroachment against their religion – Show me any organisation, labelled by the media as a terrorist that does not come under one or more of these descriptions.

QUESTION - Is Israel, the IDF and Mossad terrorists for flouting UN resolutions, invading a foreign land, appropriating its resources, imprisoning its people, killing men, women and children indiscriminately? Targeting members of a democratically elected government with extra judicial assassinations; building an apartheid wall? Using Phosphorus munitions – banned under International Law?

QUESTION - Are Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Pearle, George Bush, D. Cheney all terrorist and war criminals? Are Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres, Yitzak Rabin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak , Ariel Sharon , Ehud Olmert ., golda meir all terrorist? For they have all committed atrocities that would fall under the definition of terrorism.
     
QUESTION – Is the UK a terrorist state for atrocities perpetrated against the Mau Mau in the Uprising of 1952? For Hola camp massacre in Kenya in 1959? For the atrocities against the Zulu in the Bambatha Uprising? For atrocities committed in Aden? For the use of dum-dum bullets and poison gas against "uncivilised tribes" in the Suez Fiasco? For Batang Kali massacre in Malaya in 1948?

What I am saying is that if Hamas, Al Qaeda, IRA, PKK, ETA, GSPC , FARC, Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood can be called terrorists, then so can the Israel, USA, UK, Russia, Germany, Spain, Colombia, and any western country that has indulged in imperialistic adventures, extra judicial killings, torture, atrocities against any group it has fought.

In addition, any country that has supported apartheid policies, any war of aggression, or injustice, against another country or group, is also worthy of being tarnished with the label.

TERRORISM is NOT an exclusive club that only consist of western media demonised religious fanatics full of ideological dogma. It also consist of Christian fundamentalist and secular Weston Nations, their intelligence organisations – CIA, DIA, NSA, MI5/MI6, , DSGE/ DPSD, MOSSAD, BND, GRU, etc.

"But if you compare the reaction of Christians to what is written about Christianity whereby Christians just shrug their shoulders and don't respond.If you compare the way Muslims take offence at perceived insults that are not insults, but are just a critical way of looking at their religion, then I start to ask myself, why are Muslims so hypersensitive to criticism and why don't they do anything with it except to respond by denying it or playing the victim?  And I've come to the conclusion it's because of the gradual indoctrination – from parents, teachers – that everything in the Qur'an is true; Muhammad is infallible, you have to follow his example and defend Islam at all times, at all costs. Instead of going along as most people are doing now and saying, OK, let's refrain from criticising Islam, let's refrain from calling Islamic terrorism Islamic, I think we should do the opposite.NOT"

"The burden of proof now is on the Muslims; if the theology they subscribe to requires you to perform jihad, I think we should engage them by saying, 'Hey, we want to talk about this with you'; that's not to insult you. It is right there in the Qur'an, it is right there in the Hadith, it's been put into practice and it is being preached. And the people who are preaching it are taking advantage of the full array of freedoms that a liberal democratic society has. And we are not going to shut up and call it something else just because you are saying you are offended. I don't even believe they are offended. You should be more offended for the victims of 7/7, [who died] in the name of religion, than by a cartoon that is drawn of Muhammad."

first of all let define the word Terrorism before we could label it to any group, with our common sence,,,,,The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims.
so with these maybe we could also see that the act going on in the niger delta region is also [a Terrorist act]. if not then this definition is wrong.
so to my own understanding that statements is wrong[Not All Muslim Are Terrorist But All Terrorist Are Muslim.]in another word for these i will say,,,,Not All Muslim Are Terrorist But must Terrorist Are Muslim.

The other day OBJ blasphemed against Christ, DId anybody get killed for it?

Assuming it was Mohammed now, bombs would be flying, (yea islam peace my a$$)

Islam was built off the back of violence, and propagated by violence and this sacred weapon has been enshrined in their holy book, just like an haj, jihad is the most important experience for a muslim.

Thus, it is right to conclude that all muslims are potential terrorists(since that depends on their devotion to it)

Also it is incidental for intimidation to accompany violence, all acts of violence is terrorism, including nuking, punching, carpet bombing, assassinations. etc.