[headdie]

introduce skynet, nuke the planet then there will be no humans left to do crazy things

[Turambar]

so, people i offended, how does it feel?  I imagine it's a lot like what my dad feels when people say things like your response "what do they have in common, the qur'an" which happens a lot more often.  

(Most) Terrorism is a product of desperation.  It could be manufactured, perceived desperation like these inept wackos in the US, or it could be real desperation like they have in the middle east, where they are attacked by an enemy they have no hope of fighting.  Most people just put up with it, but a tiny minority will decide that they need to retaliate, somehow, against whatever they perceive is causing the problem.


Edit: Added a most in there to cover my ass and because Israel's state terrorism doesn't fit. 

[TESLA]

But they are.  Anybody has the potential to be a terrorist for some cause--the conditions just have to be right.  That's the whole point I was making.

By that logic, anyone who reads: Plato's Republic, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, Sir issac Newton: Principia Mathematica, John Sutart Mill: On Liberty, Charles Darwin:The Origin of the Species, etc, etc

Is a potential Terrorist.

[Nuclear1]

Origins of Species and Plato's Republic don't condemn homosexuality, require people to put faith in something intangible, or enforce an archaic moral code.

[Pred the Penguin]

I get the feeling that you're saying anyone could be a terrorist... religious or otherwise.
I'm getting mixed messages here.

[Nuclear1]

Give people something to believe, let them become desperate, and convince them the only solution is to enforce their beliefs is through violence.

Terrorism.

[Pred the Penguin]

How do characterize rebellion then?

[Snail]

Christians, Muslims, who cares. They both fly planes into buildings and kill people for luls.

I am very offended by your misspelling of lulz.

[Flaser]

How do characterize rebellion then?

It's the *same* damn thing. Although it's more appropriate to call it insurgency.
A successful insurgency - that probably started with terrorist actions - is later called a rebellion.

Terrorism is the gestalt state of insurgency and it's primary aim is to draw attention to itself and their cause and hence recruit people.


A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century
Counterinsurgency Field Manual (FM 3-24)

[Wolfy]

That chart has some fundamental flaws. the Terrorism column should really be Terrorist Cell while the Guerilla column should be Insurgency/Terrorists.

This may REALLY mess with some peoples minds: The Rebellion in Star Wars where acturally Terrorists, no matter what they where fighting for. As where th Colonials in the occupation of New Caprica in Battlestar Galactica (they even used suicide bombs)

[Flaser]

That chart has some fundamental flaws. the Terrorism column should really be Terrorist Cell while the Guerilla column should be Insurgency/Terrorists.

This may REALLY mess with some peoples minds: The Rebellion in Star Wars where acturally Terrorists, no matter what they where fighting for. As where th Colonials in the occupation of New Caprica in Battlestar Galactica (they even used suicide bombs)

I'm rarely rude, but in this case it's warranted: shut up.
You start nitpicking a chart by people who actually *fought* COIN then you bring up a Star Wars reference.

[Thaeris]

I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and the rest of the christians:

the bible. 

I'd say there's a pretty prominent link between these terrorist folks and you:

you're both humans (possibly you're also both americans)

Stop trolling.

How about no...

Any organized system can fuel heinous acts. Ever think of extreme nationalism or governmental extremists? Those Revolutionary Guards would love to give you a piece of their mind, not to mention sidearm. I also encourage you to consider things like communist Russia, where atrocities commited in the name of the state were far beyond the comprehension of the normal person.

...This anti-religious sentiment is really quite dim upon analysis, especially when you stop to consider actions which very non-religious individuals are capable of. You think governements are innocent of terrorism to achieve some sort of means, wheter good or evil? Systems by their nature are vurnerable to abuse - stating any one system or type of system as the root of this is folly.

As a final note, I quoted TrashMan as he does have a point in abstact: human nature is the critical cause of terrorism. Most religions I know of do not emphasize violence towards others in any form of good consciousness - people, regardless of their beliefs, will bend systems/statements/etc. to meet or fulfill their veiws. Human nature taken a turn for the worse is the enemy here, not faith.

[General Battuta]

So, Thaeris, if you'd read Nuclear's posts, would you have noticed that he already espoused the precise same sentiment?

However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.

[Sushi]

Regardless of semantic games, I think there's a clear difference between "terrorism" that focuses on attacking civilians and "terrorism" that attacks a government. Both can be construed as rebellion, but the means they allow themselves to use is important too. If, for example, the USA turned into a theocratic dictatorship, and you decided your only recourse was to fight back, would you blow up bombs in shopping malls? Or would you be trying to minimize civilian casualties? There is a moral difference here that shouldn't be ignored. Regardless of how it gets labeled, it isn't the same thing.

However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.

I think this is a bit disingenuous, at least as written. Obviously, the vast majority of Christians, as well as their leaders, are not advocating violence against homosexuals and women. It's not a part of behavior or doctrine. How many churches can you walk into and find somebody preaching such violence? Sure, there are a few, but they are the minority. And don't try to claim that the Bible defines doctrine: not all churches interpret it the same way, or even literally. It's more complex than that.

At the very least, there is that common willingness to believe in things that don't make any sense, these guys just took it too far.  It was possible for them to do this because the framework was already there in their heads that allowed them to consider true things for which they had no evidence.

For those of you claiming that religion does cause these problems, you are deluding yourself about human nature. People come fully equipped with the ability to believe things that make no sense and/or have no evidence. People, unfortunately, are perfectly capable of rationalizing terrible acts with or without religion.

[General Battuta]

It's more complex than that.

I think this is a fairly nice summary of the issue, in fact.

I'm in the camp that argues that any system can be bent to violent ends, religious or not. My only beef with religion is that its rewards are arbitrarily determined and located after death, which means they can be manipulated to give believers incentive to commit violent acts very easily.

[jdjtcagle]

Sushi is right.

Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.

[bobbtmann]

Sushi is right.

Also a lot of you are simplifying things. People are way more complex than this... at most, your angry about isolated incidents because they get the spotlight. It amazes me that all the talk I see here about the intolerance of Christians and I see more intolerance from people posting here on these forums, all based on generalizations.

It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.

[Thaeris]

So, Thaeris, if you'd read Nuclear's posts, would you have noticed that he already espoused the precise same sentiment?

However he's right to point out that Christianity (via the Old Testament) does advocate violence against homosexuals and women and such, which is problematic.

The Old Testament is chock full of a lot of rough stuff, which was rather critical when dealing with equally nasty neighbors. The Law was swift and to the point when dealing with problems and dissidents as a means of maintaining order - to an extent, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in today's society (in abstact): I feel you'd not see too many people with a mind to murder another, seeing as the penalty for murder was to be put to death. An ordered society, so long as it's not too rigid is a formidable entity.

If you note the New Testament, I'm going to cite this: from Jesus himself: "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Under such a charge, anyone convinced that violence against another should seriously think again. Love, after all, is the fulfillment of the law...

...and women and such...

Cultural conventions of the region aside, I can think of no particular thing in the Bible anywhere which cites unjust cruelty to women. If you'd like to use that as an argument, please give me something to look at...

I posted the last statement for, as a religious person, I am slightly offended by "religious people are extremist and lack judgement," etc. This wasn't aimed at Nuclear in particular.

[bobbtmann]

I remember a quote somewhere of how women were supposed to keep silent, or something. I think that was from the New Testament, too. And as we all know, oppression leads to violence. And usually the violence is directed from the oppressor towards the oppressed.

And Thaeris, I'd like to point out that nobody follows the bible to the letter. They pick and choose the parts that suite them. Jesus can say love they neighbor. But if someone gets uncomfortable at the thought of gay men then they listen to Leviticus rather than Jesus.

[Nemesis6]

It's like Anne Coulter in Ottawa saying all terrorists are Muslims. It's both intolerant and wrong. The common thread between all this isn't some religious text. The common thread is we're all humans.

Just nitpicking a bit here, remembering something Shamil Basayev said in regards to the Beslan massacre: "This is a war between the descendants of monkeys, about whom your Darwin wrote, and the descendants of Adam, glory be to Allah."