Who is responsible for the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta?

[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.