Why since the end of WWII?
WTF was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
WTF was the firebombing of Dresden?
If you want to redefine already poorly defined words then I don’t see how we proceed when I define terrorism as an ILLEGITIMATE form of assymetrical warfare and you define terrorism as killing people.
Saying something is the case since some time does not mean that it was not the case before that time. :rolleyes:
I’ve no particular desire to ‘proceed’ with you.
I was just pointing out that your tweaking your definition does not mean that it is accepted by everyone.
Anyway, I suspect that many people would consider floating in the sea and lobbing munitions at a country when they don’t have the technology to either properly defend themselves or fight back to be asymmetric warfare.
I’m just saying that countries with large and/or sophisticated military capabilities define it that way.
I’m not sure that the whole world agrees with that definition.
Here is one example of why we don’t want to play so fast and loose with words like terrorism:
My friend went to Kenya to work on the Rwandan war crimes tribunal. One of the most contentious debates was what to categorize as a war crime.
In one case they were faced with an squad of militants that had killed every adult male in a village and then gang raped the women hoping to impregnate them.
In another case a squad of militants ran into village, kidnapped a few girls and serially gang raped them over time, killing some of them in the process.
One was a war crime the other was not. Both were horrible things and both are punishable as crimes in Rwanda.
We can condemn all killing or military action (and rightly so) but we can’t call all of it terrorism.
Who is to say whom is ‘playing fast and loose’?
Americans, generally, consider American forces who sit in extremely well defended ships and fire explosives into the capital city of some country virtually immune to any counter attack to be ‘our brave troops’.
On the other hand they consider people who undertake extreme dangerous missions inside the US to be ‘cowardly terrorists’.
I’m just saying that carefully defining words so that your own side isn’t covered is itself pretty asymmetric and certainly will not be agreed by everyone.
Assuming you are an American, would you rather have your brave troops, acting on your orders, btw, in the line of fire with a chance of getting killed just so you can call it ‘fair’?
“I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”
That’s a ridiculous response.
We’re talking about the characterisation of actions, and use of words, not who wants whom killed.
I’d actually far rather no one was killed or injured.
I just wish people would be more honest - with themselves as much as with anyone else - when they consider these matters.
Then don’t start wars your not willing to finish and there would be little need for these sorts of discussions.
[quote=“Uzi, post:248, topic:550891”]
I’ve never started a war. 
It’s one of the Five Pillars.
For Sunnis. Shia is different.
So what? We’re only talking about Sunni.
Incidentally, even the Shia follow all Five of the Pillars, they just call them “obligations” instead of “Pillars.” They still believe in mandatory charity, so it’s a difference of semantics, not of actual practice.
Which Islamic news sources or Islamic groups do you follow to see this lack of condemnation?
I’m confused. You mean that in America there was a widespread support for a group that perpetrated terrorism, but that they were able to support those groups on the notion of solidarity for the oppressed while still condemning the terrorist acts themselves?
That seems relevant somehow.
Oh, I’m sorry. I was unaware that Muslim=Sunni. I’m sure the ~200million Shias in the world appreciate it.
Both also have Jihad as a core belief. Whether it is called a pillar, obligation, or an ancillary of the faith is semantics, also. Which also makes it somewhat different from other major religions.
Your understanding of Islam is as shallow as your reasoning, it can come as no surprise that you reach absurd conclusions.
“Jihad” is most assuredly central to Islamic culture, just as “faith” is central to a Christian. In its most original form, it meant the struggle within oneself to completely submit to the will of Allah. It has been expanded over the years to fit various agenda, some admirable, some less so. But it does not “mean” aggressive struggle to force others to submit. Even in the context it is used, and the context you insist is the only valid context, it means the defense of Islam.
And yours is the ‘all religions are equal’ interpretation arrived at with little though, or reason. Your definition is only partly correct and is not as cut and dried as you wish it to be.
Jihad
So, you missed this part, did you?
No, I saw that part. Which is why I said you were only partly correct. It appears you missed the entire latter half of the article where it talks specifically about warfare. Why? Doesn’t fit your worldview about the ‘Religion of Peace’? Yeah, when everyone else is dead or subdued, then there is peace.
There seems to be an attempt to castigate Muslims for the terrorist acts of a few extremists that are not representative of them while shrugging off the actions of Christian terrorists.
Terrorism is usually conducted against the innocent and more then often the victims are random; given that the bomb you’ve placed in a pub/shop/street cannot discriminate between who it slaughters when it goes off.
Recently after an eight year investigation; it was revealed on the 24th of August 2010 that a Catholic priest who was the quartermaster for an I.R.A. “Brigade” was a central element in the atrocity conducted at the village of Claudy on the 31st of July 1972.
Three bombs were planted and killed nine people, one of whom was an eight year old girl.
Ironically the bombs killed more Catholics then Protestants.
The Brits became aware of who was responsible but didn’t reveal that one of the main perpetrators was a Catholic priest; because they feared (probably rightly) that N.I. would take off and the Catholic population would almost certainly be butchered by outraged Protestants.
When I last looked Catholics and Protestants are Christians, as I nominally am.
We should hate the terrorist, not the religion that he/she believes in.