Do they deserve rights ?

An important difference between AL qaida, and ETA/IRA is that Al Qaida threatens the whole west, whereas for example ETA only threatens Spain

Thus AL Qaida is percieved as a much greater threat.
Also the objectives of AL Qaida are much more important


On another note, I must agree with what has been said above about the distinction between terrorist and rebel/freedom figther
From all I have seen it's just a matter of point of view.

For example in Afghanistan, during the soviet occupation the afghan fighters were called freedom fighters andhighly idealized in the west(Hey, they even saved Rambo's ass )
No one cared that 80% of their victims were other afgahns.
Now, as western forces are confroted with the same people they have turned into terrorists.

Same thing in Chechnya, before 9/11 the chechen fighers were rebells/freedom figthers, now most in the west call them terrorists.

 

TD, I am English. Have you heard of the IRA?

 

TD, I have re-read your posts in this thread, you do not define a Muslim Terrorist at all and your posts do single out Muslim Terrorists as being particularly worthy of having no rights.

I apologise for the remark about the spelling though, typos happen to us all.

 

Castelot wrote:

The distinction can become blurred however in most cases it's quite clear. If you target innocent civilians for the purpose of creating terror in the populace then you are a terrorist. If you target military or paralitary fighters then you are a guerilla or partisan but not a terrorist.

Leave makebelieve out of it. They make movies about many stupid subjects.

Not sure about the 80% but in any case the afghans they were fighting were also fighters, not civilians.

If they only fight soldiers or paramilitary forces they are called insurgents, not terrorists.

I don't recall the chechen rebels being hailed as freedom fighters before 9/11. Even now it's the Russians that are insisting that they be called terrorists and hinting that they should be included in any war on terror.
I haven't seen that view being received very favorably in the west.

 

Greig, the IRA have only recently renounced violence after an extremely protracted series of negotiations and concessions. That still does not make their members or their activities any less Terrorist.

I agree that the Islamic Terrorists have shown no sign of abandoning violence, but even if they sponataneously did so tomorrow would that make their atrocities any less horrific?

Those in Ireland could no more separate themselves from their religious groupings and remain in the province. A Catholic Loyalist would be persecuted by both sides, by the Catholics as a traitor and by the Loyalists because he was a Catholic. (Again I can draw the parallel to my friend's father, an Irish Catholic in the RAF, if he returned to a Catholic neighbourhood he risked death for being ex-RAF, if he returned to a Loyalist neighbourhood he risked death for being a Catholic).

The only reason the violence in Ireland is so polarised is because there are historically mainly two groupings (Catholic or Protestant), if there had been a large Muslim grouping there historically they too would have had to chose Loyalist or Republican, or be on the recieving end of both.

It is not so much in Northern Ireland about Protestants terrorising Catholics and vice versa as about Loyalists terrorising none-Loyalists and Republicans terrorising none-Republicans.

The Irish terrorist groups that you consider obscure are far from obscure to me and many Britons, the PIRA and INLA in particular have been very prominent in Britain and Anglo-Irish relations for decades.

Because a particular grouping is considered internationally "Obscure" or whether or not their violence is sectarian or religious is still largely irrelevant to considering the position of the Terrorists, they are still terrorists regardless of their motivation and a terrorist act committed is no more or less a terrorist act because the participants were part of a sectarian grouping instead of a nominally religious grouping.

I merely picked up on the issue of of "Muslim Terrorists" because these seemed to be being focused on by some participants in this debate.

 

If it is that black and white, then the Resistance were clearly terrorists.

It is a not unreasonable indicator of attitudes at the time that on the end of one of the films it includes words to the effect of "Dedicated to the heroic fighters of Afghanistan". They were seen as freedom fighters, now they are terrorists.

What, every last one of them?

I do recall that view, perhaps it wasn't seen that way across the Atlantic. I think that view largley remained the same until after Beslan.

 

Were they? Did they target innocent civilians for the purpose of creating terror in the populace. Maybe they did, but I wasn't aware of it. You have any examples?

Of course it is unreasonable. You can find movies that take nearly any position you wish to take, for or against nearly any subject and then claim that they are indicators of prevailing attitudes. The dedication was likely the opinion of one man or at most a few..director and/or producer.

I don't know if they deliberately targeted innocent civilians...do you know of any cases? If some innocents were killed in the crossfire or targeted in error then that isn't terrorism. Happens to all military forces at one time or other.

Presenting such anecdotal views does not constitute much in the way of evidence of that being the prevailing view. My not recalling such a view doesn't present any more evidence but then the burden of proof in a case like this is on the one making the assertion. Until there credible evidence that such a view was prevalent then there is no need to refute it.

Of course the bottom line is that if one is a terrorist it is not an adequate defense to cry "yes, but so are they!.".while pointing a finger at others.
If the IRA are also terrorists..and I think they are...that changes nothing.
The islamic terrorists are more harmful than all the other terrorists in the world combined if you look at the body count.

 

Innocence is a relative term in wartime.....
They did of course intend to create terror among parts of the population which they considered collaborators.(A rather small part of the population tough)

.

Honestly I am not absolutely sure about the 80% either but I read something like it.Will check my source.
But undoubtely the afghan resistance killed incredible amounts of civilians.
Large parts, especially of the urban/educated population supported the communist system rather than the mujaheedin.
All "collaborators" were targets.Also, if one village helped the soviets that village was not seldomly attacked by the resistance and everyone including women and children was killed.
Some tribes supported the soviets, and all members of it were likely to be targeted by the mujahedeen.
And certainly no one in the west called them terrorists back then.I was young at the time but I can remember the idea of the noble tribemen figthing for their liberty....


On another note one can also argue about the terrorists/resistants in Iraq.
Last week there was a Pentagon report which stated that 80% of their attacks are aimed at coalition forces, but 80% of the victims are Iraqis.(Due to the very rudimentary methods used by the terrorists/resistants).


I admit that I find it hard to decide whom I should consider terrorist or rebell.

 

Yes, but isnt it easier to kill a civilian with no protection?

And im sorry i should of put that i though it did

 

Neither did the IRA back in the 1970s when they first really started going for it. Who knows what the situation will be in the future.


Um, I really can't remember how all this started...

I think that we are all agreed that terrorist = terrorist, regardless of whether they are called Patrick, Hasan or Julio.

Can we also agree that what makes a terrorist is often a relative view.
For example, there were incidents during the American Revolution where civilians living in the Americas who supported the British crown were attacked (usually tarred & feathered) by the pro-Independance guys. While not lethal, this is still clearly attempting to impose your viewpoint/agenda on a society by use of violence and terror. Were those guys terrorists or freedom fighters?
(this may not be the best example, but I thought it might be relevant)

Or maybe the Mau Mau, who attempted to overthrow British rule by brutally slaughtering British farmers and their families.

 

to quote a person in the bond movie "die another day"

"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

if you look at IRA and ETA. they only want a small country (the basks want northen spain and IRA want that last strip of ireland that is still occupied by the Britisch to united with the rest of ireland.)
but what does Al Queda want? they don't claim land, they claim that they should own the world and all the unbelievers should be killed as bruttaly as possible. i don't see any kind of freedom fighter in al queda since they have their country (iran and saudi arabia and possibly Syria will give the shelter, no doubt about that)

 

Not all terrorism is about land. Some is about ideals.

It is all still attempting to impose what you want to happen onto people who prefer the opposite.

The bulk of the Northern Irish population quite like being British.

To Al Queda, an all-Muslim world is right & proper. As, arguably, an all-Christian world is to the Pope.

I'm half-tempted to go off into pointing out that the Papacy has, over the years, used some highly questionable methods (including much violence) to make the known world Christian - even to the extent of granting pardon to anybody who killed non-Christians on the Pope's bidding.

The difference is that he Papacy was the establishment, while Al Queda is by necessity a hidden faction.

Now, where was I...?

 

Could pleas give some points on that fact that the papacy hase asked for violence?

Im not a chathlic i just whant to know some facts about it nad im not mad ethier im just interested

 

ricky wrote:

As I have pointed out every time this point is raised there is an even bigger difference. How long ago was it that the pope and Christians were using violence to kille or convert the heathens?
What happened centuries ago is not comparable to what happens today.
At one time human life was so cheap that people were sold into slavery or fed to animals or forced to fight to the death in the arena.
The world has changed since then. If the Islamists are trying to impose the values and beliefs of another century on the contemporary world then why not allow some groups to reintroduce slavery, or the gladitorial arena or the Crusades? That makes about as much sense as the radical islamists thinking that they can force the wicked, modern world to live by their 7th or 8th century rules and regulations on how to live.

I don't adhere to the rules of the Pope, or the Bible, or Muhammaed, or the Tooth Fairy and I don't intend to be forced to do so by anyone

 

TD - as early as the 800s Popes were preaching that heathens should be converted by force (refusals to convert = death), and that any Christian who died during this duty would go straight to heaven.

I should point out that modern Popes are much better on stuff like that (they don't say it).


Just pointing out that nothing is new under the sun.

 

I once read a story about an american general in the philippines whose name i can't remember(i don't know even if it is true.) But the story goes that he captured a group of muslim rebels.The general then had a pig killed in front of them(or a dog),collected the blood in a bowl and then dipped bullets into the blood in the presence of the prisoners.Then he ordered his soldiers to shoot the prisoners with the coated bullets except for one rebel.He set the rebel free and for 40 years there was peace in the muslim areas of philippines.

Well,as much as i would seem inhuman to those that believe in human rights....i believe that every last of them should be killed.I do not enjoy it but i believe it was Stonewall Jackson that once said,"only the black flag will bring the North quickly to its senses"(again i can't confirm if he heard it,most sorry)
Some of you may say that will only strengthen their resolve,but for a muslim terrorist,what keeps them going is their faith.They believe they will go to paradise when they martyr themselves.So all we have to do is take away that faith,make them touch something"dirty" that will deny them of paradise and then execute them. I personally would not endorse it,but hey you guys seem to want a good way to rid urself of terrorism.Same thing for other kinds of terrorist.

However,my religious beliefs would prompt me to say and do the most foolish thing someone can do,love them.

 

Well, fed to animals / fighting to death is inadmissible by your own arguments, as that only happened in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, and ceased 400+ years before the Popes started up their campaigns (7th Century). And slavery was one of the things that the Popes were trying to stop.
And as for cheap - slaves were pretty valuable property

Who said that they are imposing the beiefs of 'another Century' - these beliefs are current to them. They only seem 'old' to you because Western society has been here before. The Second (Italian) Renaissance, famed as the awakening of Europe etc etc, was simply the re-discovery by Europe of Centuries-old Greek & Roman ideas. Ideas which had been preserved, ironically enough considering the context of this discussion, by the Islamic world. This event laid a lot of the foundations of the 'Modern World'.

Good for you. I adhere to the 'rules' of the Bible/Christianity, but through choice.

This does prompt for me an interesting question that I would like your take on -

You should not force anybody into doing anything against their will.

But, if something they are doing (or not doing) is judged as wrong and harmful by others, what should happen?

 

ricky wrote:

Not inadmissable at all inasmuch my only point was that what was accepted at one time may by todays standards be considered totally unacceptable. Human slavery is one thing that fits that description.

I don't know how much of the Quran you have read but the rules laid down are as archaic as anything in the Old Testament. I'm no theologian however so I won't try to debate it chapter and verse. I think that most people in western society would think that an autocratic rule by the religious mullahs where every aspect of one's life is determined from facial hair to what food you eat, to what clothes you wear is archaic and unacceptable. It certainly is to me.

Well with that simple question you open a very large can of worms in the area of ethics and morality.
I don't necessarily agree that one should not force one to do (or not do) anything that is against their will. Anything that an individual does that has a significant impact on his neighbor must be considered in that light.
Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

 

But then, millions of people in Britain choose to follow it. Some to such an extent that they are prepared to go to court to be allowed to wear garments that cover everything save their eyes in the place of their school uniform.

However, yes, an autocratic rule is out, as far as I am concerned. Once again I am not sure why we have ended up where we are...

I thought that might be your stance...

I pretty much agree with Mr Holmes.

 

But Ricky, certainly it is not right to be swinging our fists everytime and stop short of the other's nose?

Besides,if you will folow me,the momentum of that swing would have made it nearly impossible often to stop short of the nose. That kind of behaviour must be curbed then.We certainly do not wait until a punch connected then do we condemn such acts.