Hindus involved in Spain terrorism??

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
I am not sure I quite follow this. Are you suggesting that by mentioning the they were hindus meant that this could not have been AQ? Or are you suggesting that now AQ has hindu members in it?

That is why it is significant... that is that the persons arrested were not Muslim. And yes, if the men arrested had been Christians that would have been significant. What I really wanted to know is if they were Muslim. The fact that they aren't is significant.

[Kishore Dandu]

It could be that the Indian guys are living illegally in Spain(like some illegal immigrants in the US) and making money by selling SIM cards and calling cards. It is possible that they are arrested due just because they sold the calling cards to the culprits.
In that case there is no reason to worry about a new dimension of Al Quida.
Kishore.
[ March 15, 2004: Message edited by: Kishore Dandu ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
[QB]
It cant be generalized at all.
I will say there are terrorist who are Muslims. The same way there are terrorist who are Hindus or who are Christians or may belong to any religion.
[QB]

Not all generalizations are inaccurate.
I don't really know of any significant Christian or Hindu terrorists groups, not have I heard of any recent attacks by them, but there are too many to keep track of in regards in Islam. Furthermore, the average muslim in many countries, not just the extremists, seems to like the most bloody terrorist of all, Osama Bin Laden :

"Almost two-thirds of the people in Pakistan say they view bin Laden favorably � a significant finding because U.S. troops are trying to find bin Laden in the mountainous region on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan (news - web sites). More than half of those in Jordan and almost half of those polled in Morocco had a favorable view of the Saudi terrorist."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20040316/ap_on_re_us/international_poll_1

[Jeroen Wenting]

try the IRA for a significant Christian terrorist group...
While they have strong communist sympathies and ties, their main cause if religious (at least to the outside world).
The sect which launched a poison gas attack against the Tokyo subway was also religious, in this case Budhist. At the time they had an estimated 30.000 members (now down to several hundred).

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
but there are too many to keep track of in regards in Islam.

The problem is you read the polls and set your mind.
So what are your views about the scientist of Pakistan who sold nuclear technology to Iran and other countries.
But there are people who think he is a national hero.
Do you think that guy care less about world. No, because he was told that Dr. Khan is hero so they say so.
Now the poll you are talking about, did the question was asked whether are they in favor of killing. I am sure 99% will say NO.
Polls depends on the way question is asked.
People in the surveyed Muslim countries remain angry about U.S. policies, and even supportive of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the Saudi terrorist who took credit for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
Do you know what was the question ??
Here it says that they were supportive to OBL. But did the question try to find out whether they support his act or not ??
Now its again debatable, how can a person get support for what he is but not for the act he has done. They might support him for throwing Soviet army out of Afghanistan.
If you ask me, do you like killings/murders ?
My answer is "yes".
Your survey is over. And I am a person who could be a possible murderer.
But the fact is, I like watching Rambo. I like watching Jurassic Park, Terminator etc. I like watching all action movies in which there is killings and murders.
And the second thing, I might be wrong, but it seems that you have not met/lived with muslims.
Its something like saying that Arab men prefer men over women.
May I know any other Islamic terrorist group you know other than Al-Qaieda ??
I am not providing christian or any other religious terrorist group names, because I know you know them too.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
try the IRA for a significant Christian terrorist group...

Admittedly, my knowledge of the IRA is not deep and I wait to be corrected, but even from the name we see that they are not called " The Christian Republican Army" or some such name that proclaims they are killing in the name of Catholicism or even merely identifying their religion. This is in stark contrast to Islamic Jihad and the 10 dozen other Islamic groups who have the word Islamic in their title. In fact, "Islamic" may be the most common and popular title to have in a terrorist group name. I'll wager that for every terrorist group with "Christian" in their name, there are 20 with the name "Islamic". All of this is not terribly significant except in respect to your claim below :

While they have strong communist sympathies and ties, their main cause is religious (at least to the outside world).

I would say that the name of your group would reflect your most significant representation of the motivation of your group to the outside world. Maybe you will argue that the IRA is more devious than the Islamic groups; and maybe it is purposely ommitted religion in its name to gather sympathy from groups of other religions. The problem with that and with your statement on its representation of its "main cause" is that the statements that I have seen issued by the group do not support what you claim. as one example : http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/statements.htm
Secondly, you ignore the historical basis of the conflict which seems to originate with Scottish and English moving onto confiscated lands of the Irish. Then there is the not trivial issue of being governed by what the Irish consider an alien government, the British.

The primary motivation, both based on history, and in the actual statements of the IRA, is political. The IRA is not therefore a Christian terrorist organization.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
And the second thing, I might be wrong, but it seems that you have not met/lived with muslims.

But, I have.. and I dont see anything wrong with the conclusions Herb draws. I grew up in a 20% muslim neighborhood, worked in a 50% muslim city and I concur with much of Herb's conclusions

May I know any other Islamic terrorist group you know other than Al-Qaieda ??

Hamas, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Taliban, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, PLO and a number of others whose names I do not recollect at the moment.

I am not providing christian or any other religious terrorist group names, because I know you know them too.

Nobody is denying that there are other religious terrorists groups as well. But the fact remains that only one religion seems to be exporting violence. If there are Hindu terrorists (for an example) then they conduct their acts within India because they want Hindu domination within India.. if there are Christian terrorists (again for an example) they commit their acts within Ireland and England because they want Christian domination there. However Islamic terrorists seem to be exporting their violence out of the middle east to other parts of the world..

[Thomas Paul]

The IRA is not a Christian terrorist group. They make no claim that they are fighting for Christ or that there religion says that what they are doing is right. Their goal is to "liberate Northern Ireland from the illegal occupation by the English". The fact that one side is Protestant and the other Catholic is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with religion.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The fact that one side is Protestant and the other Catholic is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with religion.

I would say that its very relevant.
The connection to religious stuff makes them more resolute fighters.
Religion is allways intermixed with bloody history. Bin Laden constantly aludes crusaders of middle age. IRA-"freedom"-fighters alude the remote time when british ate all the potatoes of the irish and irish heroically resisted to move over to protestant camp and stayed with the classic (catolicism, I am one sheep of Rome, too). By the way were whole cultures been exstinguished in the name of christianity. One could easily find lots of parallels between people like Cort�s and Pizarro and todays muslim terrorists.
If anybody seriously believes that christianity can't go hand in hand with terroristic attitude, please go and buy some history book.
[ March 17, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Falana Dhimkana]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Nobody is denying that there are other religious terrorists groups as well. But the fact remains that only one religion seems to be exporting violence. If there are Hindu terrorists (for an example) then they conduct their acts within India because they want Hindu domination within India.. if there are Christian terrorists (again for an example) they commit their acts within Ireland and England because they want Christian domination there. However Islamic terrorists seem to be exporting their violence out of the middle east to other parts of the world..

Isn't that some logic! Since Hindu terrorists are not exporting their terror their acts must be less evil! And BTW, why is there an "If" when it comes to Hindu terrorist? If there are Hindu terrorist? You won't deny other terrorist groups but you will think twice before using labels when it comes to Hindus/Christians. Isn't that right?
[ March 17, 2004: Message edited by: Falana Dhimkana ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Falana Dhimkana:
Isn't that some logic! Since Hindu terrorists are not exporting their terror their acts must be less evil!

I never said the crimes of any terrorist was less than heinous. It would be a false assumption to state otherwise.

And BTW, why is there an "If" when it comes to Hindu terrorist? If there are Hindu terrorist? You won't deny other terrorist groups but you will think twice before using labels when it comes to Hindus/Christians. Isn't that right?

How convenient.. you neglect to mention my first line. Let me repost it for you..

Nobody is denying that there are other religious terrorists groups as well

The above includes all religions, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Wicca etc.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Now the poll you are talking about, did the question was asked whether are they in favor of killing. I am sure 99% will say NO.
Polls depends on the way question is asked.
People in the surveyed Muslim countries remain angry about U.S. policies, and even supportive of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the Saudi terrorist who took credit for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
Do you know what was the question ??
Here it says that they were supportive to OBL. But did the question try to find out whether they support his act or not ??
Now its again debatable, how can a person get support for what he is but not for the act he has done. They might support him for throwing Soviet army out of Afghanistan.

Let us not ignore the most important points of the issue.
Everyone knows of OBL's connection with Al Queda. Everyone knows of Al-Queda's involvement in 9/11 and other bombings. OBL is no longer resisting Soviets, he is now directing and inspiring the mass murder of innocents around the world. His supporters know he is a mass murderer. Despite his anti-Soviet status, do you mean that people consider the fact that he is mass murderer irrelevant when they give their support to him ? There is no way to spin this issue and it does not matter how the question is asked in the poll. OBL is a mass murderer period. Anyone who supports him either supports terrorism or does not see any significant problems with it.
Besides the polls, there are numerous reports of muslims who celebrated or quietly enjoyed 9/11 around the world and in the US. I really wish I was wrong on this issue and hope you can prove me wrong. I would like to believe 99% of muslims are not like that, but I will not let wishful thinking blind me to all the evidence.

May I know any other Islamic terrorist group you know other than Al-Qaieda ??

Oh, please, this is too easy :
Armed Islamic Group, http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/gia.htm
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/hamas.htm
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/pij.htm
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/imu.htm
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya ,http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/algama.htm
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/jem.htm
tell me when to stop, because there's more....

I am not providing christian or any other religious terrorist group names, because I know you know them too.

You mean groups that have "Christian" in their name, or explode bombs in crowds in the name of their Christian religion, or try to overthrow the government to establish a Christian theocracy ??? No, I really do not know of a single one. The odds are there must be at least one, just that I haven't heard of it, although I know you will tell me soon. On the other hand, for every 1 Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Shinto/Taoist/Rastfarian terrorist group, there must be 50 Islamic ones.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

The above includes all religions, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Wicca etc.

Paul, stop being so PC. You're spewing the classic all cultures/religions are equal dogma when the contrary reality is slapping us all up side the head so hard that we'd have to be comatose not to see it. From Spain, to Indonesia, to Phillipines, to Egpyt, to Israel, to the US, we are not being attacked by Wiccan , Christian, or Buddhist terrorists.
Since you made the claim, please name 1 terrorist group from each religion you mentioned.
Even if there was some Wiccan terorist group that throws pumpkins at old bald stout men, the very un-PC fact of the matter is that a disproportionate number of terrorists come from a certain religion that is not Wiccan

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Armed Islamic Group, http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/gia.htm
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/hamas.htm
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/pij.htm
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/imu.htm
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya ,http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/algama.htm
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed), http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/jem.htm

I dont have time rt now .. but stil I could not avoid this ... even I have not read the links .. only by the names I am telling you that most have a shades of freedom fighting.. or they want their own territory.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
I dont have time rt now .. but stil I could not avoid this ... even I have not read the links .. only by the names I am telling you that most have a shades of freedom fighting.. or they want their own territory.

You've got to be kidding. Their stated aims make a difference?! As long as their aims are to create strict Islamic states it's okay? As long as they only blow up Jewish civillians it's okay? Not that their aims and actions can even be determined just from reading their names. There is no such thing as a legitimate terrorist organization, regardless of what they pretend they are fighting for. I guess given this logic then that the terrorists bravely fighting for a free Kashmir can be dismissed?
Here's a list of 25 international terrorist groups proscribed by the UK's Terrorism Act of 2000. Eighteen of those 25 are Islamic terrorist groups. And that list is from 2000. I can think of a few newer groups just off the top of my head.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Their stated aims make a difference?!

Dont you think its aim only which makes difference ?? Else what will be diffrence between a murderer and a soldier.
Here's a list of 25 international terrorist groups proscribed by the UK's Terrorism Act of 2000.
And most of them are fighting for their own territory.
I am not legitimising their acts.
9/11 was act of terror because it had no aim other than to terrorise everyone.
There are acts which are only to spread terror and nothing else.
herb has a better question:

You mean groups that have "Christian" in their name, or explode bombs in crowds in the name of their Christian religion, or try to overthrow the government to establish a Christian theocracy ???

I have question for you. In how many countries Christian are more than 20% and less than 30% ?
Either Christians are in clear majority or they are in extrem miniority.
I hope my question has given answer to your question.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Else what will be diffrence between a murderer and a soldier.

The difference is not only the aims, but also the tactical intent in carrying out the aims. Deliberately targeting civilians makes you a murderer, and that is what terrorist/murderers do.
Your other comment about these groups fighting for their own land is false. Most of them have their own land and government, for example Armed Islamic Group and a few others I mentioned previously (also see entire list at web site). Some are simply trying to overthrow the secular government in Muslim countries such as Egypt and Algeria, and replace in with islamic theocracy as in Iran or was in Afghanistan. Does every mosque have the right to declare its own country and begin waging war (or terrorism) wherever it is located to accomplish that (I guess that would be jihad, so OK)?

I have question for you. In how many countries Christian are more than 20% and less than 30% ?
Either Christians are in clear majority or they are in extrem miniority.
I hope my question has given answer to your question.

I see, if Christians were the magic number between 20-30% they would mutate immediately into bus suicide bombers. This is argument is funny and sad at the same time.
Anyway, this does not explain islamic terrorists in muslim countries.
I hope you do not think that they being 20-30% of population is any justification for terrorism? If it is not justification, then join with me in denouncing the groups I posted earlier and the others on the web site I and Jason gave.

[Terimaki Tojay]

The fact is that there is no concept of Jihad or Crusade in eastern religions. You will never find any Hindu/Buddhist/Jain terrorist group that is fighting in the name of religion or forcing others to convert. Islam and Christianity are , unfortunately, such religions who have, either in the past or in present, engaged is such things. And this is the sole reason why these religions are being followed by majority of the population, not because they are particualry good or morally superior.
So when christians start to accuse muslims, all I do is :roll:

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I see, if Christians were the magic number between 20-30% they would mutate immediately into bus suicide bombers.

Its a magic number .. and sad, that it works.
The difference is not only the aims, but also the tactical intent in carrying out the aims
It does not matter whether one is killed by bullet or bomb or by aeroplane or by sword. The thing is that one life goes away.
I hope you do not think that they being 20-30% of population is any justification for terrorism?
What you are calling terrorism, I am calling fight for territory or for own space.
then join with me in denouncing the groups
Did I ever say that I support them ?
I, myself, neither support nor like the idea of fighting for land(or more acurately demanding land) in the name of religion, let it be Muslim or Jews or anyone.
AW I also need break.
Good day.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by R K Singh:


The difference is not only the aims, but also the tactical intent in carrying out the aims
It does not matter whether one is killed by bullet or bomb or by aeroplane or by sword. The thing is that one life goes away.

Correct, to the person being killed it does not matter; but we are not discussing the opinions that dead people hold. We are discussing what classifies someone as a terrorist and why so many muslims support terrorists.

I hope you do not think that they being 20-30% of population is any justification for terrorism?
What you are calling terrorism, I am calling fight for territory or for own space.

Oh, so Al-Queda fights for territory or its own space? And 5 mintues ago I read this at Yahoo news,
"Al-Zawahri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad was believed behind the assassination of President Anwar Sadat during a Cairo military parade in 1981. He merged the organization with al-Qaida in 1998." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040318/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_hunt_32
Also, in prior post I mentioned Algerian muslim terrorists.
These are muslims in muslim countries, they are not freedom fighters or fighting oppression, they are murdering thugs, killing civilians so they can take over the government and impose medieval theocracy on the unwilling majority. You may not agree with them, but it seems you are giving some effort defending them with your weak justifications for their murders.


Good day.[/QB]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
The fact is that there is no concept of Jihad or Crusade in eastern religions. You will never find any Hindu/Buddhist/Jain terrorist group that is fighting in the name of religion or forcing others to convert. Islam and Christianity are , unfortunately, such religions who have, either in the past or in present, engaged is such things. And this is the sole reason why these religions are being followed by majority of the population, not because they are particualry good or morally superior.
So when christians start to accuse muslims, all I do is :roll:

You help prove one of my points; that all religions are not equal, some are much more violent than others. Last time I checked, the last Crusade was 4-5 centuries ago, but the last bombing by Islamic terrorists was last week. Unless you are a Time Lord, your eye rolling needs better temporal synchronization.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

I would say that its very relevant.
The connection to religious stuff makes them more resolute fighters.

You are missing the point. We are talking of primary motivations. The primary motive of the IRA is NOT religious. Because the British are Protestant adds a little fuel to the fire perhaps, but the fire would be burning anyway and there would still have been violence. The primary issue and the primary motivation is a political one. People , let alone groups or nations, seldom have one single pure motivation in doing anything. I'll grant that there can be mutiple motivations, but the hatred that came first and is primary, was politcally motivated not religious. The difference in religion just added to the already existing feeling that the British were an alien nation imposng their domination on them.

Religion is allways intermixed with bloody history.

Taosim has no bloody history. Buddhism was spread peacefully by monks throughout China, India, Asia, Indonesia, and pacific ocean region. Perhaps you can dig up some small, splinter sect of deranged Buddhists at some point in Buddhist history, but to do so would miss the big picture and the bigger truth of the matter. As another poster pointed out many major sects of Hindus, like Jains, do not have bloody history. For God's sake, some hindus do not even injure insects on principle!

Bin Laden constantly aludes crusaders of middle age. IRA-"freedom"-fighters alude the remote time when british ate all the potatoes of the irish and irish heroically resisted to move over to protestant camp and stayed with the classic (catolicism, I am one sheep of Rome, too). By the way were whole cultures been exstinguished in the name of christianity. One could easily find lots of parallels between people like Cort�s and Pizarro and todays muslim terrorists.

Pizzaro and Cortez had more mundane concerns than religion; the historical record is abundantly clear and unambiguous to anyone with eyes to see; their primary motivation was gold.

If anybody seriously believes that christianity can't go hand in hand with terroristic attitude, please go and buy some history book.
[ March 17, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

Yeh, history books are cool man!
Did the Pope send Cortez and Pizarro to rape, pillage, and convert the New World? What was the primary motivation of Cortez, to simply terrorize the natives, or simply to convert them to good Catholics, or something else....
Here's my point, Christianity had very little to do with Cortez's or Pizarro's adventure in the New World.
But all this pointing at Cortez and the Crudasdes shows how really weak these types of arguments are. You guys are having to dig back not just 1 or 2 centuries, but like 5 or 6 centuries, that should be embarrassing to you.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You help prove one of my points; that all religions are not equal, some are much more violent than others. Last time I checked, the last Crusade was 4-5 centuries ago, but the last bombing by Islamic terrorists was last week. Unless you are a Time Lord, your eye rolling needs better temporal synchronization.

Ditto to that too Herb.. To accuse Christians of murder is like accusing me of slaughter of lower caste people in India. Ridiculous! Its like asking what right then do I have to talk about the violence in Islam when people of my own caste have misbehaved in the past? Absolute nonsense!!!
My life is threatened today.. and by a bunch of militants from one sect/ religion. Maybe a 100 years down the line there will be a new religion which will make todays extremist Islam seem like child's play.. so do we still continue to accuse muslims? no! Today's danger must be dealt with not something that has been dead and buried for decades / centuries.

[Joe King]

My first instinct is to say that all the killing, be it by "terrorists" or by "freedom fighters" are equally bad, but then something popped into my head - the French resistance. Technically I suppose that they were terrorists fighting against the (Vichy) state (although its another debate as to if Vichy France was a "proper" state). The thing is that the French resistors are quite often thought of as being the "good guys" even though they were doing things that we would consider terrorism. I'm not quite sure what to think of them - they were fighting an enemy that my country was also fighting, but using techniques that could be called terrorist (does anyone know if they ever targeted civilians, or just German/government targets?).
Another worrying question is "would you become a resistance fighter if your country was invaded?". Its one I'm not sure I can answer - I would want to fight to save my country, but other hand that would make me not much different from a terrorist. I don't think I could do it, but then I don't think we could possibly understand the mental state of a person in that situation unless we had also been in the same situation.
The general point that emerges from all of this is how useless it is to attempt to negotiate with many terrorists - they believe that they are "freedom fighters" and they believe that their cause is right. This means that there isn't ever going to be a total victory in the war on terrorism in the near future, if at all.

[Arjun Shastry]

Right,its difficult to end terrorism.The reason is obivious.People who have been 'fighting' for some goal have public support.More the public support/fundamental cause,more difficult to turn the people away from violance.In some cases they are right,in some establishment is right.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:
My first instinct is to say that all the killing, be it by "terrorists" or by "freedom fighters" are equally bad, but then something popped into my head - the French resistance. Technically I suppose that they were terrorists fighting against the (Vichy) state (although its another debate as to if Vichy France was a "proper" state). The thing is that the French resistors are quite often thought of as being the "good guys" even though they were doing things that we would consider terrorism. I'm not quite sure what to think of them - they were fighting an enemy that my country was also fighting, but using techniques that could be called terrorist (does anyone know if they ever targeted civilians, or just German/government targets?).
Another worrying question is "would you become a resistance fighter if your country was invaded?". Its one I'm not sure I can answer - I would want to fight to save my country, but other hand that would make me not much different from a terrorist.

You mean we still can't even agree that terrorists are those who deliberately attack as their primary target civilians??
For a minute let's forget all of our very deep insightfull intellectual philosophical distinctions; at a basic emotional level, don't you feel that deliberately killing little chidren on a school bus is different than attacking Nazi troops or disrupting their infrastructure/supplies ?

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You help prove one of my points; that all religions are not equal, some are much more violent than others. Last time I checked, the last Crusade was 4-5 centuries ago, but the last bombing by Islamic terrorists was last week. Unless you are a Time Lord, your eye rolling needs better temporal synchronization.

You checked wrong, my friend. In India, physical/violent crusades were done as recent as 100 years ago in Goa by Portugese. The same thing is still going on in may parts of Africa. In India, however, the the "tacticts" of the crusade has changed now. From physical force, now they use monetory force.
So I guess, your research needs a better spatial adjustment instead of my eye rolling because Europe is not the whole world.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
You checked wrong, my friend. In India, physical/violent crusades were done as recent as 100 years ago in Goa by Portugese. The same thing is still going on in may parts of Africa. In India, however, the the "tacticts" of the crusade has changed now. From physical force, now they use monetory force.
So I guess, your research needs a better spatial adjustment instead of my eye rolling because Europe is not the whole world.

And today Hindus are terrorizing Christians and Muslims in India. So what's your point?
[ March 19, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You mean we still can't even agree that terrorists are those who deliberately attack as their primary target civilians??
For a minute let's forget all of our very deep insightfull intellectual philosophical distinctions; at a basic emotional level, don't you feel that deliberately killing little chidren on a school bus is different than attacking Nazi troops or disrupting their infrastructure/supplies ?

I agree that deliberately killing little chidren on a school bus is different than attacking Nazi troops, but your or mine moral standards don't apply to everybody. We are not living in the conditions that "terrorists" are living in. We do not face the problems that they are facing. So we do not have the right to determine their moral standard.
So we can justify we killing terrorists just as well as terrorists can justify their killing of children. Everybody is at a different mental state.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And today Hindus are terrorizing Christians and Muslims in India. So what's your point?
[ March 19, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Please read my first post.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:


So we can justify we killing terrorists just as well as terrorists can justify their killing of children. Everybody is at a different mental state.

You could not be more correct : Everybody is at a different mental state. Some are at the mental state of animals or lunatics, others eptiomize what it truly means to be human and have actualized the furthest reaches of human potential.
[ March 19, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:

You checked wrong, my friend. In India, physical/violent crusades were done as recent as 100 years ago in Goa by Portugese. The same thing is still going on in may parts of Africa. In India, however, the the "tacticts" of the crusade has changed now. From physical force, now they use monetory force.
So I guess, your research needs a better spatial adjustment instead of my eye rolling because Europe is not the whole world.

You are perhaps unaware of the historical definition given to specific activities designated as "Crusades". It does not apply to activities 100 years ago.
"monetary force" is perhaps a oxymoron, although I'm willing to listen for a short while without snickering as you explain what you think it is .

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It is a sad day when people here are defending terrorists. The poor misunderstood terrorists... Sickening.

Hold it there, Pal. I am not justifying terrorists or their acts. We have been bearing the brunt of it for a very long time now. In fact, India has been crying hoarse about it since past two decades, when US didn't even care. It was as sickening to us then as it is to you now. So please don't cloak yourself with a drab of morality. That's the reason when you guys crib about it, I :roll:
I am only saying what a terrorist might feel or say. And I could be wrong because I am not a terrorist.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You mean we still can't even agree that terrorists are those who deliberately attack as their primary target civilians??

Attacks on civilians are definatly terrorist. There are some attacks that could be seen by some people as not being so clear cut though - a bridge being blown by people in an occupied country up for example - if there are no people killed is it terrorism or freedom fighting? It could be argued both ways I suppose. Personally I'd be more inclined to say its terrorism, but I can see how some people would see that it isn't.

For a minute let's forget all of our very deep insightfull intellectual philosophical distinctions; at a basic emotional level, don't you feel that deliberately killing little chidren on a school bus is different than attacking Nazi troops or disrupting their infrastructure/supplies ?

Of course there is a difference between attacking children and Nazis. I don't think that I wrote what I said in a particularly clear way - what I meant was that there are some attacks that take place that some people call "terrorist" and some people call "freedom fighting". I personally couldn't condone any attack of this nature, but I'm trying to say that there are some people who don't see attacks as terrorist, but as freedom fighting. What this means is that we've got a much harder job to stop the terrorists as they may have strong support in communities that think of them as freedom fighters.
My example of the French resistance was trying to make a point that one side in the war would have seen them as terrorists and one side would have seen them as freedom fighters (I'm not so sure because I don't really know enough about what they did). The point is that even if we are sure that someone is a terrorist, we have to be prepared for the fact that some people will disagree (much as we may not want them too).
Oh dear. We've mentioned Nazis - the thread is doomed

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
Hold it there, Pal. I am not justifying terrorists or their acts.

What makes you think I was refering to you? Besides, I had deleted my comment just prior to you making your post as I felt I was being too general and not communicating what I really wanted to.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

You are perhaps unaware of the historical definition given to specific activities designated as "Crusades". It does not apply to activities 100 years ago.
"monetary force" is perhaps a oxymoron, although I'm willing to listen for a short while without snickering as you explain what you think it is .

Yes, I am unaware of the "definition" of crusades. Please do enlighten me. All I know is Christians did and do apply physical force including killing (terrorisim, basically) to convert people to christianity. So do Muslims.
So call it whatever you want to. That's the fact.
No, Monetory force is not an oxymoron. Economic sactions, loans, Grants, are all examples of monetory forces at a high level. Bribes and Kickbacks are also examples of monetory force at a lower level. I hope you understand that.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Terimaki Tojay:
Yes, I am unaware of the "definition" of crusades. Please do enlighten me. All I know is Christians did and do apply physical force including killing (terrorisim, basically) to convert people to christianity. So do Muslims.
So call it whatever you want to. That's the fact.

And Hindus did and do apply physical force including killing (terrorism, basically) against Christians in the name of religion. Against Muslims too. Call it whatever you want to. That's the fact. You don't actually think you guys are all clean and pure too, do you?
[ March 19, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What makes you think I was refering to you? Besides, I had deleted my comment just prior to you making your post as I felt I was being too general and not communicating what I really wanted to.

Sorry, since you didn't put any indication of whome you were replying to and since your post was immediately posted after mine, I , apparantly wrongly, assumed that you meant me. So I just wanted to clarify my stand.
I do not in any way sponcer/support/justify terrorism.
Since this is a discussion, I am only trying to see the other side of the coin. What goes on in a terrorist's mind that overtakes the generally accepted standards of morality and pips them into bombing innocents.
As is very well know, the masterminds are not the impoverished people. They are educated (even western educated), well to do, people. So they are not that stupid either.
On that line, what we call innocents may not really be innocents in the eyes of terrorists. After all they (the innocents) are the people who supported their govts. to send military to their lands.
Just like in a human body not all cells are geared towards attacking germs. Only a few types of cells (WBCs?) go a fight the germs. But the germs do not only attack WBCs. They attack the whole body. Similarly, not every person of a country goes a fights the wars. Only a few types of people do. But that does not mean ONLY those people are at war and so only those should be targeted. The whole country is at war and so terrorists attack civilian population. They do what they are best at and we do what we are best at. They hurt us where it hurts us the most and we hurt them where it hurts them the most. Nobody is a saint here.

[Terimaki Tojay]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And Hindus did and do apply physical force including killing (terrorism, basically) against Christians in the name of religion. Against Muslims too. Call it whatever you want to. That's the fact. You don't actually think you guys are all clean and pure too, do you?

As a matter of fact, yes, I do think that we are a lot more cleaner a purer. By saying, "And Hindus did and do apply physical force including killing (terrorism, basically) against Christians in the name of religion." you are painting a totally wrong picture by avoiding the real cause.
Hindus did not go to europe, afraica, and americas to kill muslims and christians to convert them to hinduism. But Muslims and Christians did EXACTLY that. That's the BIG difference. I hope you understand that.
It is only now that Hindus don't want to give in to Muslims and Christians and so they are resisting. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Person X comes to my house, beats me up, converts me. And now when I regain my senses and resist the atrocities, I am the bad guy. Wow. Call me whatever, I don't subscribe to your theory.

[Paul McKenna]

So Teri, what exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that Christians cannot accuse militant muslims of terrorism because they may have employed similar tactics in the past? Or are you saying that no one can condemn the terrorists for their deeds because in the eyes of the terrorist, innocents are not exactly innocents?
Could you please clarify.. I am getting confused with the mixed signals you are sending out.
For the record, I am a Hindu and I do not agree with Teri's viewpoints. To take beef with the acts of some Christians ages ago is ridiculous. And Teri, you perhaps need to brush up on your history. Crusades were not carried out to convert people they were carried out to reclaim stolen land from the muslims. And the point to remember here is that every crusade was a failure except for one.