Forget it, Jake, it’s Syria.
Seriously, though, if you believe this killing was due to ‘Islam’, could you identify where in the article this is explained? I couldn’t find it.
Terrorism it indeed seems to be, but of the kind practiced by poorly-organized militias. I’m not seeing the religious component.
Can we blame all of the attacks in Britain in the 70s-90s on Christian terrorists?
Yeah, before I posted I was afraid the group’s name might translate to “Liberal Democrats for Atheism” or something so I googled the group and its affiliations and did some reading.
It depends. If the terrorists were quoting chapter and verse, and their theology was easily defensible, given the actual content of Christian Scriptures, as is the case with groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS and Islamic scriptures, then yes. Absolutely.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Luke 22:36
Your point being?
You can if you want. I mostly remember hearing about the IRA and Sinn Fein. Something about one side being mostly Catholic and the other side Protestant or something, but I don’t recall people running around saying “convert or die” or anything. The parties involved were Christian, but that didn’t seem to be the point. I imagine there’s a difference between a terrorist who happens to be Christian and a Christian terrorist. What do you think?
For every criticism of Islam there is an equal, but not opposite, criticism of Christianity. I think it’s some sort of natural law are something.
It’s certainly an SDMB law.
And McVeigh happened 21 years ago. How far back do you have to go to find examples of Islamic terrorism? 21 hours, maybe?
If it was done by a Muslim, it’s terrorism.
If it was done by a non-Muslim, it was just a lone crazy (even if there was a group of them).
Well, not all war crimes are terrorism. (Not all terrorist acts are war crimes. If one jackass with a gun shoots up a nightclub, it isn’t “war” at all, just a crime.)
The definition I favor is that a terrorist act is an intentional crime against civilians having a focused political basis. If someone is mentally disturbed and violent, there is no actual political basis.
I leave out such things as the London Blitz or the fire-bombing of Tokyo, as these were formal acts of war, and not ordinary crimes trying to puff themselves up as political statements.
The U.S. drone program may embrace war crimes (I don’t agree, but I won’t reject the notion as self-contradictory) but I can’t see how it could possibly be counted as “terrorism.” It has sufficient “fig-leaf” legitimacy in the targeting of “enemy combatants.”
Since definitions came up it might be useful to look at the FBI’s definition.
Not every attempted or successful mass killing is necessarily terrorism. A mass shooting by an disgruntled worker that targets his boss and coworkers would be an example. Not every terror attack necessarily includes an attempt to kill. The long running ALF/ELF (Animal Liberation Front / Earth Liberation Front) bombing campaign in the US would be an example of terror attacks that focus on property.
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (aka START for some reason…maybe from pronouncing STRT?!?) hosted by University of Maryland is probably of interest. It’s an interesting site for those who want to get passed the typical journalist demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. They recently finished updating the Global Terror Database to include 2015’s data.
Actually, Richard Clarke said in his book that Al Qaeda may actually have had a role in the OKC bombing:
For those with short memories, Richard Clarke is the furthest thing from a crank.
The drone program so infrequently hits its stated target that one must conclude that they really aren’t all that concerned about hitting those targets. The program is a terror campaign to force a civilian population to reject the idea of providing any support to our enemies so that the terror bombing from the sky might one day stop. It is a war crime and it is terrorism. Americans like our terror tied up in nice packaging so we can pretend it doesn’t exist. If a guy blows up a bus for 72 virgins? Terrorist. If he blows up a wedding so that he can go to college on the GI bill? Thank you for your service.
People here who want to talk about the violent nature of Islam need to look in the fucking mirror and ask themselves how many people have to die so they can live their vacuous life style.
To be fair, the Christians got kind of fatigued by the whole European Wars of Religion which managed to kill off somewhere between 5 and 16 million people, not counting the Scottish and English Reformations and the English Conquest of Ireland and all of the fallout coming from that, and then of course the Crusades, which were largely an exercise in reinforcing feudualism, opening trade routes in the Mediterranean, and getting rid of excess sons who might otherwise pose a danger of trying to usurp the line of succession. Islam as a whole is still trying to catch up to the collective Christain churches in death toll and destruction despite numerous invasions, various civil conflicts, and the campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent; but what they lack in the basic competence of warfare and organizational administration they make up for with enthusiasm.
As for drone strikes, they can’t be said to be war crimes per se, nor do they exactly qualify as terorrism in intent (although they are in effect), but they fall into a new class of largely ill-advised and generally ineffectial means of conducting warfare which is as transparent as motor oil and almost completely lacking in culpability of error for all authorties and actors involved. There is little evidence that drone strikes have been effective as a counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measure, a position even stated by the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
Stranger
Yes, they are a whole new kettle of fish, and I, too, question whether they do more harm than good. Calling “bad things I don’t like” either terrorism or a war crime isn’t productive in discourse, though.
Are you under the notion that IRA and Sinn Fein are the two sides? It’s not clear from your post. You do seem to have missed the whole socio-historical-religious background to the whole issue, though.
No, I’m not but feel free to hunt strawmen and engage in thinly veiled ad hominems.
Do you think “all of the attacks in Britain in the 70s-90s” was Christian terrorism? Make your case.
Nava, aren’t you the local Spanish expert or something? Would you describe Basque terrorism as Christian terrorism or Witch terrorism or something else? I understand the Basque are Roman Catholic with a history of witchcraft.