Never happened.
To my knowledge none of the Northern Irish terrorist groups ever did anything to a plane - the closest they got to that was the IRA firing mortars at Heathrow airport.
Perhaps you’re thinking of the Lockerbie tragedy, which was a plane from the US to London (believed to be a Libyan bomb - while Islamic, Libya is secular, therefore the atroicty was not Islamist); or the Air India flight that was blown up by Sikh extremists off the coast of Cork?
jjimm, first of all my apologies. I saw your second nitpick after my last post. As for the flight being blown up over the mid-Atlantic, I’m quite sure it happened. Dad was in England at the time, and was booked to fly back to the U.S. a week later on the same flight. It would have been the late 1970s or early 1980s. It could have been the flight blown up by Sikh extremists. In which case, given that Sikhs aren’t Muslim and the coast of Ireland is even further abroad for them to go, I suppose I should take that as backing my argument.
I’m afraid what I learned about the situation in Northern Ireland was rather one-sided growing up. I apologize, and I am working on correcting my own biases, but they’re persistent little buggers!
CJ
Starving Artist, a point of view should always be based in fact. As long as you continue to have a distorted view of Moslems do not take the time to educate yourself, you are a participant in the same stubborn bigotry that is at the root of the problem.
As for your days among the hippies, I suspect that your haircut had nothing to do with your social problems. (After all, you did mention that you did have hippy friends, so guess we weren’t all alike, were we?) My husband also had to have short hair for his work. I was a prim and proper school teacher during the week. It wasn’t that unusual. Nobody cared. That was the whole point.
The “freedom and tolerance crowd” is made up of individuals. Some are just as hateful and spiteful on any given day as anybody else. Some are more grounded. They are not all alike except in the ways that all human beings are basically alike.
Do you support freedom and tolerance?
I would rather formulate it like this:
Fact is that by far most of the terrorist acitvity aroung the globe on which the Western media chooses to focus its reporting on, is the one that is caused by people claiming to profess the Muslim beliefs.
See the explanation for a significant part of your wondering in my response above.
Now you write correctly certain of its followers.
As for your questioning on the phenomenon itself (and your view on it): This board is in my opinion not the right one to start a discussion on that, so I shall not go further in to it.
I think it is a valid issue to start a thread on in GD.
Salaam. A
The most terroristic of all religions is Methodism.
Davies in History of Wales paraphasing historian Leakey.
Whoops-- the actual article said “believed to be from the republican side” and I made the assumption. :o
And where did I imply that? I only asked you to consider the cause of terrorism. I’d rather hoped that you would have, in the context of the post I’d made that appeal in, defined “terrorism” in somewhat broader terms, and seen the common denominator.
Oh, and as to “Islamic fundamentalists hate our way of life,” that has piss-all to do with al Qaeda attacks. Amazingly, Al Qaeda’s stated grievances make no mention of sexual parity, backyard barbeques, or MTV.
If you want to believe that they persuaded 19 fuckwits to fly planes into buildings because they’re really worked up about Americans’ love of sports cars, Christina Aguilera videos, and houses with white picket fences, or maybe because they thought a huge attack on U.S. soil would help to keep their wives in burkahs, then feel free to delude yourself. Since you have shown a remarkable ability to see absurd “implications” in place of what is actually said, I’ll take the time to point out something that should be obvious: I’m not saying Al Qaeda’s attacks on the US are justified or deserved – only pointing out that their “justifications” for them are pretty far-removed from that “They hate our freedom!” crap that you’ve been spoon-fed, which anyone with a lick of sense would be insulted by.
Yes, Wahhabism is hostile to outside influence on the Islamic world. It’s also hostile to most Muslims. Doesn’t really have all that to do with Al Qaeda’s motivations, though.
Heh, heh…I know that. Unfortunately I worked for a company for a long time that was owned by two brothers named Britton. Force of habit got me. 
Perhaps I owe you an apology as I had read somewhere recently that the problems with mideast countries have been caused by U.S. policy in the mideast. My apologies if it wasn’t you.
And since when are we talking about only Al Qaeda? I thought the discussion was in regard to Muslim extremists and terrorism in general.
And in case it’s missed in the previous thread as I inadvertantly included it in LM’s post, I reiterate:
In the case of Al Qaeda’s attack, they want us out of Saudi Arabia and Israel and all other Arab countries. (And gee, what better way to get the real lowdown than from Al Qaeda’s own website?)
[nitpick] While we’re bashing away at stereotypes, let’s have at this one, too. Sure, there are parts of Massachusetts that are very liberal (hello, People’s Republic of Cambridge! :D) but there is a goodly chunk of the population that is decidedly conservative. The western half of the state, for example, is quite another kettle of fish than the Boston metro area.
[/nitpick]
Starving Artist, your assessment of what group dominates terrorism seems to be warped by a narrow definition of it (and perhaps by the American media’s blinkered reporting of it). As others in this thread have pointed out, the use of terror to further a goal or goals goes far beyond the attempts of one current religion’s adherents to impose through violence the strictures of that faith on the world. The naked ape, my reading of history would suggest, has employed this method of establishing its preferred form of order throughout its bloody recorded history. You might even call Islam the Avis of the terrorism world – trying harder to overcome the Christian number one.* 
As to Jay Severin – pah! I say. Just another glurge-regurgitator.
*I mean over the course of history! Please, stop throwing those rocks at me!
I wonder what the reaction would be from US patrioctic groups if ever the Arab nations were to occupy, or have large military bases in the US, y’know, to protect the region from nearby unstable regimes such as Canada?
Perhaps US citizens would form discussion groups ?
In my opinion the Bible Wavers would create immediately “workshops” to have those satanic Muslims saved by the “Jesus Saves” preaching.
They would have the full support of the ousted Bush and -government. Them of course counting on it that conversion to the peaceful Christianity would get them to leave the US peacefully. Just as peaceful as the US happens to have acted and acts in Iraq.
Salaam. A
How so?
So can I. And he would have a point.
Where did I say that?
Nowhere, that’s where!
I said no other terrorist group is as widespread throughout the globe. (In fact, not even close.)
What??? They don’t count as terrorist acts if they are against Islamic populations?
A terrorist act is a terrorist act no matter where it’s commited.
Where have I advocated that people hate Islam?
Now we come to the crux of the matter. My complaint is that any negative comment about a particular person, religion or belief, even if the complaint is valid, is viewed by some as a blanket condemnation of whatever group or belief the offender is affiliated with. This is what I mean by people in this country going to ridiculous extremes in an attempt to do the right thing. Whether this is the result of compassion or snobbery and a desire to appear superior I couldn’t say, but my guess is probably both.
This is so naive and silly that it’s hard to believe someone would actually say it. Are we to timidly allow the loss of our eyes and teeth so that only the villians will have them? :rolleyes:
How magnanimous of you. Now we can all congratulate you on your noble restraint. What a snob!
In spite of the reiteration, your point is not clear. You recognize that Al Qaeda’s main reason for targeting the US is American military presence in the Middle East? What was all that about Islamacists’ hatred of “The American Way of Life,” about, then? Nothing?
Regarding your parenthetical rhetorical question, am I reading it correctly as sarcastic? Because there really is no better way to understand a terrorist organization’s motivations than to get it from the horse’s mouth. Terrorism is a way for people without a mandate or legitimate political power to assert a political will through extortionate acts. It can only work if they accurately relate their demands.
By comparison, if I wanted to know what the Army of God’s true agenda was, I wouldn’t feel a need to look beyond their official organs, which make it clear that they want an end to the availability of abortions and birth control. If you wanted to, you could make observations about the microculture of the movement, and come up with all sorts of inferences about how they want to suppress Rock & Roll and make sure that everyone in America gets a bad haircut and clothes from K-Mart, but to do so wouldn’t really be helpful.
Whoa, there, big fella! You know I bear you no animus, right? So will you accept my suggestion not to fling stuff like that at Siege? She’s one of the kindest, most thoughtful people around here, IMHO. When most Pitizens would be slinging “asshat” or worse, she’ll still stick to civilities, no matter how strongly she feels.
By all means, if you disagree with her arguments, have at them! But she’s not one I’d direct ad feminem comments to. Of course, I like her, so that no doubt colors my take on this.
Hello, EddyTeddyFreddy. 
You may well have a point as the American media is where my news comes from. If you have evidence that some other group is predominant, I would very much like to hear about it.
And as far as a possible narrow definition of it goes, the way I think of terrorism is the deliberate taking of innocent life in at attempt by a group or person not part of soverign state or nation in order to try to acheive a politcal or social goal that they can’t achieve through politics or military force. (I’ve just ordered a gross of straight razors with which to hold my own in the hair splitting that will doubtless occur due to the definition I just posted.)
Again, you may well have a point. I am not schooled in the use of terrorism thoughout history. However, I still revile it. And speaking of naked apes, is it not the way of humans throughout history to perceive threats in a more generalized manner as the alternative is to wait until you’re being attacked to decide whether the attacking person or group is a threat? I’m sure in the wild west days, when people ventured out of their cabins or farmhouses, they viewed all mountain lions as possible threats, not just those that have shown themselves to be a threat.
(And btw, this is an analogy intended to show people’s tendency to generalize in perceiving threats. I purposely did not use an illlustration involving people as to do so would just invite more of the same thing we’re already discussing. If anyone is inclined to declare my analogy flawed because it involves an animal and not human beings, please refrain.)
Never at you, mon ami.
Yes, but with a great deal of respect may I suggest that to insert an asterisk with a footnote suggesting the use of restraint in not using an insult is just as much of an insult as if one had been used. To me, this appears disingenuous and hypocritical.
Siege may indeed be a wonderful person, as I’m sure many of the people on this site are. But I can only take people the way they show themselves to me. I will give her the benefit of the doubt on your say so, and therefore I offer you my sincere apology, Siege. For future posts, however, I would just as soon be called an asshat.
So far, no one has shown me where my view is distorted. Do you believe that if all the terrorists in the world were rounded up as individuals, that Muslim extremists would not constitute the overwhelming majority? If you can, I will be more than happy to listen.
I didn’t really have social “problems.” This was just an experience I had that opened my eyes to the fact that people are essentially the same. Once these people got to know me everything was fine. The point is that they were judging me on my appearance while at the same time saying everyone else should judge
them by who they were, not the way they looked.
This is true and a very good point. However, I would point out that there is virtually none of the scathing condemnation directed toward the “freedom and tolerance” bigots on this board that I see directed elsewhere.
Of course, I do, Zoe! It’s just that I don’t try to support it by going through life with blinders on.
They are not mutually exclusive.
You would be correct in perceiving sarcasm. I’m sure they are as capable of using propaganda as anyone. And as far as I’m concerned, these people have attacked and killed thousands of our people – innocent people who had nothing to do with their grievances – and have in effect declared war on this country and its citizens. My position on trying to understand their grievances would be no different than in trying to understand those of Hitler or Hirohito!
Say what?