Who is responsible for the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta?

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm, I (incorrectly, it seems) guessed that Ummah was some form of the Arabic word umm meaning 'mother'. I know this because Saddam Hussein supposedly referred to the first Gulf War as umm al maarek, "the mother of all battles".

 

[Adam]

You forgot ''ummah" (the muslim world). It misses Al Quaeda tho.
Now, can anyone name a terrorist attack in this year, from atheists, christians, hindus, buddists or perhaps shaolin monks?

Basque separatists in Spain. Christians in Sudan. Christians in the USA. Drug monkeys all over Central America and South America. Two idiots in Sydney who painted the Opera House.

Really, a detailed list is going to take a very long time.

 

[studentx]

Basque separatists in Spain. Christians in Sudan. Christians in the USA. Drug monkeys all over Central America and South America. Two idiots in Sydney who painted the Opera House.

Really, a detailed list is going to take a very long time.

Even tho you didnt answer my question, ill continue. Let's suppose for one second, that all these non-muslim terrorists share one common denominator; They are all drug users, and they all chant "drugs are great" when comitting their terrorist attacks.
Isnt it stupendously foolish to turn a blind eye to this common denominator?

 

[Adam]

The problem you're missing is this: there isn't such a common factor. They are not all, as you suggest, Muslims.

 

[studentx]

The problem you're missing is this: there isn't such a common factor. They are not all, as you suggest, Muslims.

I wasnt suggesting all terrorists are muslims. I suggest you reread my last question

 

[Adam]

Let me quote you:

Islam is the problem, two thirds of the worlds conflicts involve Islam, and today it almost has a monopoly when it comes to terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

I coulen't be bothered searching for numbers now. However, I recall a while ago I searched for numbers on christian whackos killing their kids in "exorcisms" in the USA, and it happens on average about once per fortnight.

edit: the goggle with one from this year was the first I'd ever heard of. In any case, that's not terrorism. Its not relevant to this discussion.

Anyone got any numbers handy regarding christian pro-life nutters murdering doctors?

AFAIK, its been several years since the last one.

Also, these are individuals, not organizations and. The closest thing we have to terrorist organizations in the US is a few radical environmentalist groups. Also, they are domestic only. Prior to 9/11, the worst domestic terrorist act (caveat: McVeigh would say he was fighting against the government) was the Oaklahoma City Federal Building bombing - politicaly motivated and having nothing to do with religion.

So then, we are still in agreement that its pretty rare?

 

[Adam]

How is it not terrorism, when people murder other people like that? And all of them are members of organisations which preach the stuff those people used as their justifications.

 

[russ_watters]

How is it not terrorism, when people murder other people like that? And all of them are members of organisations which preach the stuff those people used as their justifications.

Are you saying you consider all murder terrorism? You seem confused about just what "terrorism" is. Or is an excorsim terrorism because its an attempt to intimidate Satan?

 

[Adam]

What do you consider terrorism?

 

[russ_watters]

What do you consider terrorism?

You posted the definition in a new thread and I agree with it. Killing your own children accidentally in an exorcism certainly does not qualify.

So what do you consider terrorism.

 

[Adam]

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Sure it qualifies.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure it qualifies.

Uh, where is the violence (and calculation) if the parents didn't intend to injure or kill the kid? Who are they trying to intimidate? What is the political/religous goal of the intimidation? No, Adam, you're mis-applying the definition pretty blatantly. You can't just chop out the parts of the definition that don't fit in order to apply it selectively - you change the whole meaning of the word.

 

[Adam]

Did you not read those things about the exorcisms? They beat, drown, strangle, stab, and do other things to the kids. How is that not violence?

The religious/idealogical goal is to rid the kid of demons, by death if necessary.

 

[studentx]

Let me quote you:

Well, where is the quote of me saying all terrorists are muslims?

 

[studentx]

Did you not read those things about the exorcisms? They beat, drown, strangle, stab, and do other things to the kids. How is that not violence?

The religious/idealogical goal is to rid the kid of demons, by death if necessary.

According to your definition of terrorism, the sharia law dictates that muslims need to terrorize adulterers and women that don't wear hijabs and countless others.
Which religion is behind the 10 largest terror attacks in recent history? I could probably ask you which one is behind the 50 largest attacks, and the answer would remain the same.

 

[Adam]

According to your definition of terrorism, the sharia law dictates that muslims need to terrorize adulterers and women that don't wear hijabs and countless others.

Shariah law is f***ing insane, and needs to be crushed.

Which religion is behind the 10 largest terror attacks in recent history? I could probably ask you which one is behind the 50 largest attacks, and the answer would remain the same.

Name your expanse of time for which you're asking.

 

[studentx]

Shariah law is f***ing insane, and needs to be crushed.

Sharia law is part of Islam.

Name your expanse of time for which you're asking.

How about the last 10yrs.

 

[Adam]

Sharia law is part of Islam.

That's like saying the death penalty in the USA is part of christianity.

Shariah is not part of the legal system in every predominantly Muslim country, nor is it the same in every such country.

How about the last 10yrs.

Last ten years:

• Twin Towers in New York, 2001: nearly 3,000 dead. Perpetrators: Muslims.
• Invasion of Iraq, 2003: 10,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
• Rwanda: 800,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
• Breakup of Yugoslavia: 300,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
• Oklahoma city bombing: 168 dead. Perpetrators: Christians.
• Various US embassies in Africa: 224 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims. (Note that this is actually several events.)
• Indonesian crisis, 1999: 200,000 displaced, unknown dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims.
• Bali nightclub bombing: 200 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims.
• Sudan: 30,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims, although conflict is based more on tribal affiliation than religion.
• Russian school, 2004: 326 dead. Perpetrators: Responsibility claimed by Chechen separatists.

Looks like Muslims are behind half, in this count. Perhaps you can find another list of people targeting civilians and come up with a different count.

Now, if you go by numbers of people killed, however, Christians are far in the lead for bodycount.

 

[Adam]

Don't you just love how certain users have turned this thread, too, into a "Muslims are bad, mmkay" thread?

 

[russ_watters]

Last ten years:

• [numbers added]
  1.
• Twin Towers in New York, 2001: nearly 3,000 dead. Perpetrators: Muslims.
  2.
• Invasion of Iraq, 2003: 10,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
  3.
• Rwanda: 800,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
  4.
• Breakup of Yugoslavia: 300,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Christians.
  5.
• Oklahoma city bombing: 168 dead. Perpetrators: Christians.
  6.
• Various US embassies in Africa: 224 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims. (Note that this is actually several events.)
  7.
• Indonesian crisis, 1999: 200,000 displaced, unknown dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims.
  8.
• Bali nightclub bombing: 200 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims.
  9.
• Sudan: 30,000 dead. Perpetrators: mostly Muslims, although conflict is based more on tribal affiliation than religion.
  10.
• Russian school, 2004: 326 dead. Perpetrators: Responsibility claimed by Chechen separatists.

Looks like Muslims are behind half, in this count. Perhaps you can find another list of people targeting civilians and come up with a different count.

Well, if you fix the factual errors in your list, it tells a different story:

#2 was a war, not terrorism.
#3 is genocide, not terrorism, and its tribal/ethnicly motivated - Christianity has no role.
#4 This is/was ethnicly based, not religious based, also not terrorism.
#5 This was political, not religious terrorism.
#7 Not terrorism, but there are plenty of islamic terrorists operating there - I'll throw you a bone on that one.
#9 Correct - not terrorism
#10 Chechen terrorists are muslim and religiously motivated.

So, from your list, that's 4 muslim terrorist acts, one domestic political terrorist act, and zero christian terrorist acts.

Don't you just love how certain users have turned this thread, too, into a "Muslims are bad, mmkay" thread?

That's not what we're saying at all.

 

[Adam]

Russ, when you attack civilians for some political, religious, or idealogical goal, that's terrorism.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Terrorism implies that the killing of civilians is used to extort political gains. The Genocide, for example, was not terrorism, because Hitler was not using the threat of killing Jews to extort political gains from his enemies. That doesn't lessen the evilness of his actions, but it does alter the categorization.

Civilians die in just about every war. Using your definition, every battle would be terrorist activity.

 

[Adam]

This is why I supplied definitions, once again.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42966

 

[JohnDubYa]

Hmmm....

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, when you attack civilians for some political, religious, or idealogical goal, that's terrorism.

That's correct. I fixed your list accordingly. I knew you wouldn't mind.

 

[studentx]

That's like saying the death penalty in the USA is part of christianity.

Shariah is not part of the legal system in every predominantly Muslim country, nor is it the same in every such country.

Sharia IS part of Islam.

Don't you just love how certain users have turned this thread, too, into a "Muslims are bad, mmkay" thread?

Umm, youre the one saying that part of the Islamic religion needs to be crushed.

 

[The Green Giant]

Hmmmmmmmmm...

Well if war and these terorists are so horrible, why do we not blame cars for anything. More people died in 2002 car accidents in the US than the number of people who died in Vietnam, both US and Other. Not to mention 17 million who were injured, and the 10 or so million seriously so.

So is a drunk driver a terrorist, because he kills, or atleast terrorizes people right?

 

[JohnDubYa]

No, for obvious reasons. Think about it.

 

[russ_watters]

So is a drunk driver a terrorist, because he kills, or atleast terrorizes people right?

A drunk driver (who kills somene) is a murderer, not a terrorist. Again, not all murder is terrorism.

 

[maps]

A drunk driver (who kills somene) is a murderer, not a terrorist. Again, not all murder is terrorism.

But all terrorism is murder. So, by inference, all terrorists are murderers. Quid pro quo?

 

[studentx]

But all terrorism is murder. So, by inference, all terrorists are murderers. Quid pro quo?

Sure terrorists are murderers. But its the ppl that survive who suffer from the terrorism, and i just don't go around the hood scared ****less of drunk drivers or cars.

 

[russ_watters]

But all terrorism is murder. So, by inference, all terrorists are murderers. Quid pro quo?

Quid pro quo isn't the right phrase there. You're looking for something that says if all terrorists are murderers, all murderers are terrorists. Sorry, but it just ain't so any more than saying all football players are athletes means all athletes are football players.

 

[Smurf]

Don't you just love how certain users have turned this thread, too, into a "Muslims are bad, mmkay" thread?

Love the way they're doing that on all these threads.