It all depends on your definitions. To most people, “terrorist” entails some shadowy organization which deliberately targets and tries to injure/kill civilians (or take them hostage) in splashy attacks which manifest a desire for attention and some political goal.
By this definition, the most prolific terrorists of late have been Muslims.
And it’s reasonable to ask the question “why this connection between Islam and terrorism?”
Of course you are free to widen the definition of terrorism to include all activities by governments which have the effect of killing civillians. By this expanded definition, the U.S. engages in terrorism. But you are using a non-standard definition and it doesn’t invalidate the above question – it only distracts from it.
You are going to have to show evidence that these attacks were motivated by a desire to spread Islam. Because all the evidence I have seems to point at them being done by Afghans against India and Indian interests and that religion is not a part of it.
And you can be sure every time the opportunity arises the same usual suspects will come in to any and all threads and repeat the same thing over and over again.
I am sure there is a perfect symmetry in the world and there are also plenty of boards in other countries where some use any excuse to paint Americans and westerners in general as inherently evil. Bombing in Iraq? All Americans are bloodthirsty monsters who want to destroy us, our families and our culture. Shooting in a high school? See? They even kill each other, they have no regard for human life. They all syupport such things or else they would not happen. Etc. And a few lonely voices will keep repeating that just because there are criminals in America it does not mean all Americans, or even the majority, are criminals.
As long as we do this, as long as we divide people in “us” versus “them” and what we do is OK and what they do is evil, as long as we do that the world is in trouble.
But it may be too much to ask that people learn to analyse a bit deeper.
But that’s not the definition I’m using. The Islamic fanatics crash planes into buildings; we send missiles and armies. Why ? Because they don’t have missiles and armies. Our motivations are fundamentally the same ( in some cases, such as Iraq ); to coerce people, or to kill those we dislike, or appease our religious & political delusions. We’re just stronger, and less honest about our motives.
As far as I know the attacks seem to be aimed at damaging India’s tourism insdustry and spreading terror. They have targetted mainly western people. That makes sense to me. It seems like they were Pakistanis trying to do damage to Idia.
Now if you can show me that in doing this they were actually hoping to spread the Islamic faith through mass conversions then I’ll reconsider.
a) because Islam is a religion about absolute submission to the will of God, it has a tendency to inspire uncompromising divisions within itself, much in the way of the Christian/Catholic religion circa 1400; and
b) because many Muslim nations now experience a wide gulf between the richest and poorest: there are Saudi princes with dozens of wives and billions of dollars, and there are the poor living in bombed-out ruins. It is convenient at such a time for the leaders of the nation to pin the blame on foreign cultures as a way to distract the people from the class warfare going on in their own country — much the same way under the GW Bush years, we the people have been distracted by reports of eeeeeeevil terrorists to keep us from seeing what’s being done at home; and
c) because Islam is more comprehensive than Christianity. It is not so much a simple list of sins, but comes packaged with basic politics and economic theory into the bargain. The laws of Islam infiltrate many more aspects of daily life than does Christianity; and
d) because our news media is predominantly Christian and Jewish, and since much of the nation is also Christian and Jewish, must adhere to the popular will to a degree lest they lose ratings. We have no vested interest in portraying Islam as a balanced, peaceful religion compared to our own beliefs, when in fact, Islam is in some ways more accepting than Christianity.
They use the weapons they have. Is it reasonable to ask “why this connection between America and bombers, smart bombs, cruise missiles, carpet bombing, fighter planes, etc.?” Each people kill with the weapons and methods they have available. We have just decided that our methods are “good and civilized” while theirs are not. I can see how they have a different view. It is all a matter of point of view.
And I can guarantee that if America were in the situation of Iraq today, Americans would condone and even praise suicide bombings and other such tactics. They would be justified as patriotic and for the common good.
Radical Muslims, of the sorts who become terrorists ? Yes. Despite the attempts of the Right to pretend that they are some overwhelming danger, they are weak, and will probably always be weak. Therefore, they use the strategies of weakness.
As I said; they, and often we are attacking for the same kinds of reasons; “to coerce people, or to kill those we dislike, or appease our religious & political delusions”, in which case our actions deserve the same label. You strawmanned that I was claiming that “all activities by governments which have the effect of killing civilians” is terrorism, which I wasn’t.
And acknowledging that you know that this is true - that there are a lot of violent terrorists who are not Muslims, such as the TT, EPDA and so on – quo bono? Who benefits from keeping Muslim terrorists at the top of the news reels?
I disagree. For example Iran has a lot more power than Madagascar, as far as I know. And as far as I know, Iran sponsors a lot more terrorism than Madagascar.
So you would define terrorism as any attack intended to (1) coerce people; (2) kill someone who is disliked; or (3) appease one’s religious and political delusions?
I certainly would not want to misrepresent your position. That’s why I asked for your definition of terrorism. From your response to chowder, I assumed that your definition of terrorism included military action which kills civilians, whether specifically intended or not.
You could say that the radical Muslims cannot win a conventional war, and they do not have the political clout to get what they want through conventional political channels, so they must use unconventional tactics.
Really though, how effective are they? How many times would they have to cause carnage like this before it would change our way of life? You could almost point at 9/11 as an advert for their incompetence, for the overall superficial effect it had. It may have created problems by promoting distrust, but there is no way it has brought the citizens of the West ,or anywhere, to its knees in the way the terrorists would desire.
The majority of the damage from 9-11 was self inflicted. Manipulating your enemy into hurting himself is one of those strategies of weakness I mentioned.
And Iran is weak. It’s a regional power in a region full of weak nations.
I’m saying that that is what we and they are both doing, so it should be called the same thing. Call it terrorism or flibtergits.
How effective the 9/11 attacks were depends on your definition of success.
It undoubtedly won Al Queda a number of converts. Rich Muslims donated some money their way. It raised the esteem of the group. For a time afterward, Al Queda was flush with men, equipment, and cash. They didn’t win in the conventional sense, but you might argue that for Al Queda, being at war is much more valuable than winning at war.
Consider: what would Al Queda do if they actually won? They would have to govern; they would have to provide stability and justice; they would have to hold their conquered territory. Those goals aren’t particularly sexy, and to be frank, Al Queda wouldn’t be very good at them: they are trained for battle, not bureaucracy.
If you want to analyze a group like Al Queda, just look to bin Laden. He isn’t out there fighting the good fight. He’s living [del]high on the hog[/del] oops, he’s Muslim in the lap of luxury while he sends others to their deaths. Can you really say that bin Laden is all that anxious to die himself? No, not really. I’d bet that he likes things the way they are. From that standpoint, 9/11 was a tremendous success … for bin Laden. From the standpoint of the pilots and the radicals lining up to die, not so much.