1 2 > 
 
   
 

These murderers are NOT terrorists!

 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
25 July 2016 18:08
 

We need to stop calling them terrorists.  Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve some political end.  As such it is usually seen as reasonable and potentially practical though evil.  Do evil thing X to achieve Y.  That is not what is going in places like Orlando and Nice.  The objective in those events was simply to kill infidels, as many as possible.  At bare minimum there were means to the end of getting into Islamic heaven.  This is not terrorism.  It is murder and religious madness.

If a Catholic madman decided that the Protestants in his community were heretics and needed to be executed as such, and went on a shooting rampage with that purpose.. no one would call it terrorism.  That is precisely the sort of thing that is happening with these Islamic mass killings.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2016 18:14
 
tgwaty - 25 July 2016 06:08 PM

We need to stop calling them terrorists.  Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve some political end.  As such it is usually seen as reasonable and potentially practical though evil.  Do evil thing X to achieve Y.  That is not what is going in places like Orlando and Nice.  The objective in those events was simply to kill infidels, as many as possible.  At bare minimum there were means to the end of getting into Islamic heaven.  This is not terrorism.  It is murder and religious madness.

If a Catholic madman decided that the Protestants in his community were heretics and needed to be executed as such, and went on a shooting rampage with that purpose.. no one would call it terrorism.  That is precisely the sort of thing that is happening with these Islamic mass killings.


Islam makes no distinction between government and religion, so for fundamentalist Muslims (or even just mainstream in most cases) a religious agenda is inherently also political.

 
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
25 July 2016 18:32
 

Islam makes no distinction between government and religion, so for fundamentalist Muslims (or even just mainstream in most cases) a religious agenda is inherently also political.

But I’m not talking about the attitude of Muslims. I’m talking about the attitude of typical Westerns—atheists, Christians, Jews.  What WE mean when say “terrorist” does not fit these murderers. There is no other practical or political end they are trying to achieve when they do these killings.  Calling them terrorists suggests that there is.

At least it did to me.  For a long time, when I would hear about these cases, I would think, “What the hell are they trying to accomplish?” I figured they had some political or religious end and that they just happened to be choosing a very stupid means that doesn’t work.  Finally I realized the correct answer: nothing.  Killing those people is precisely what they are trying to accomplish, period.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
25 July 2016 18:46
 
tgwaty - 25 July 2016 06:32 PM

Islam makes no distinction between government and religion, so for fundamentalist Muslims (or even just mainstream in most cases) a religious agenda is inherently also political.

But I’m not talking about the attitude of Muslims. I’m talking about the attitude of typical Westerns—atheists, Christians, Jews.


So when considering Muslim acts of violence you’re basing your assessment of the motive, which is key to whether or not it’s terrorism, upon how the Western world thinks?

 
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
26 July 2016 07:28
 
SkepticX - 25 July 2016 06:46 PM

So when considering Muslim acts of violence you’re basing your assessment of the motive, which is key to whether or not it’s terrorism, upon how the Western world thinks?

Well, yeah. We’re the ones defining it as terrorism.  It isn’t whether they would call their ends political.  It is whether we would identify them as political. If your motive is “kill as many of the enemy to ensure a personal reward”, (in this case, heaven), that isn’t terrorism. 

On the other hand, what we may have here is a drifting of the ostensible definition of “terrorism” to refer to all instances of the sorts of actions which we typically associate with terrorists, regardless of motive.  Similar to how the “bullying” nowadays is commonly applied to any act of aggression between children, regardless of motive.  In that case, maybe there is no point in bringing this up.  Language drifts over time and there is not much one can do about it.

Sometimes words drift the other way and become more restrictive. (I’m going on a tangent here but WTH.)  The word “bigotry” supposedly is defined to mean an obstinacy in one’s opinions, a refusal to consider the other person’s view.  But over time it has come to mean only certain instances of bigotry and not others.  Use the word in a sentence out of context and listeners will assume you mean racism, sexism, etc.  Use the word more (ahem) liberally and listeners will be confused.

[ Edited: 26 July 2016 07:44 by tgwaty]
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3164
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
26 July 2016 08:03
 
tgwaty - 25 July 2016 06:08 PM

We need to stop calling them terrorists.  Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve some political end.  As such it is usually seen as reasonable and potentially practical though evil.  Do evil thing X to achieve Y.  That is not what is going in places like Orlando and Nice.  The objective in those events was simply to kill infidels, as many as possible.  At bare minimum there were means to the end of getting into Islamic heaven.  This is not terrorism.  It is murder and religious madness.

If a Catholic madman decided that the Protestants in his community were heretics and needed to be executed as such, and went on a shooting rampage with that purpose.. no one would call it terrorism.  That is precisely the sort of thing that is happening with these Islamic mass killings.

Actually, you make an excellent point. By calling it “terrorism” it also prevents people discussing the true motives of these murderers as it is filed under random act of attacks to create fear. The motives of these animals to murder for own belief system.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2811
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
26 July 2016 08:06
 

Acts of violence committed in the name of a fundamentalist extremist groups (and with their acceptance) are not crimes - they are acts of terror or acts of war, depending on how much sovereignty you attribute to the organization.

The end-goal of the perpetrators is not limited to getting into paradise: they also are trying to make a religious/political statement and influence local politics.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
26 July 2016 09:08
 
tgwaty - 26 July 2016 07:28 AM
SkepticX - 25 July 2016 06:46 PM

So when considering Muslim acts of violence you’re basing your assessment of the motive, which is key to whether or not it’s terrorism, upon how the Western world thinks?

Well, yeah. We’re the ones defining it as terrorism.  It isn’t whether they would call their ends political.  It is whether we would identify them as political. If your motive is “kill as many of the enemy to ensure a personal reward”, (in this case, heaven), that isn’t terrorism.


You can’t derive a motive for a violent act from the victim’s mind. The motive is why the agent of action is acting—for a violent act it’s 100% about what’s in the mind of the attacker. The victim’s response may be the motive, but it’s the attacker’s sense of that, not the victim’s. One way to resist a violent attack or to at least discourage further attacks is to respond in a way that’s contrary to the attacker’s motive. According to what you’re saying that would then become the motive, and that would translate to the motive for the attack is contrary to the attacker’s motive.

Pretty sure you realize this and there’s some other problem preventing you from seeing or acknowledging it because, quite frankly, it’s just too obvious (although there are certainly subtle and nuanced ways to unintentionally camouflage what are actually obvious errors when you nix the camouflage—that’s pretty much how religious belief and practice have survived over the millennia in many many sharp and healthy minds after all).

Think about it in purely functional terms ... when a police officer asks Why did you do it? (translation: what was the/your motive) who is he talking to, and who can and who can’t provide the answer?

[ Edited: 26 July 2016 09:42 by SkepticX]
 
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
26 July 2016 11:11
 
SkepticX - 26 July 2016 09:08 AM

You can’t derive a motive for a violent act from the victim’s mind. The motive is why the agent of action is acting—for a violent act it’s 100% about what’s in the mind of the attacker. The victim’s response may be the motive, but it’s the attacker’s sense of that, not the victim’s. One way to resist a violent attack or to at least discourage further attacks is to respond in a way that’s contrary to the attacker’s motive. According to what you’re saying that would then become the motive, and that would translate to the motive for the attack is contrary to the attacker’s motive.

Pretty sure you realize this and there’s some other problem preventing you from seeing or acknowledging it because, quite frankly, it’s just too obvious (although there are certainly subtle and nuanced ways to unintentionally camouflage what are actually obvious errors when you nix the camouflage—that’s pretty much how religious belief and practice have survived over the millennia in many many sharp and healthy minds after all).

Think about it in purely functional terms ... when a police officer asks Why did you do it? (translation: what was the/your motive) who is he talking to, and who can and who can’t provide the answer?

The argument you have given is not contrary to my position.  When I say we Westerners define it as terrorism or not, I mean that given an understanding of the perp’s actual motives, we (Westerners) then decide if it satisfies the definition of terrorism or not. Maybe you think I’m trying to say something more subtle than I really am. 

So, if someone says that there is no distinction between religion and politics for some Muslim cultures, that’s irrelevant.  We look at the actual motive of the perp and by OUR definitions of political or religious, we say his motivation was political or religious (or both or neither.)  But it is based on the actual motives of the killers themselves.

[ Edited: 26 July 2016 11:31 by tgwaty]
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
26 July 2016 11:19
 
Twissel - 26 July 2016 08:06 AM

Acts of violence committed in the name of a fundamentalist extremist groups (and with their acceptance) are not crimes - they are acts of terror or acts of war, depending on how much sovereignty you attribute to the organization.

The end-goal of the perpetrators is not limited to getting into paradise: they also are trying to make a religious/political statement and influence local politics.

What does “committed in the name of” mean?  But I disagree with this definition.  Turns out there is a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism  on just this topic. It’s pretty complicated but essential to most or all definitions is that acts have political ends, or at least ends beyond the act itself.  If you go out and kill a bunch of people because you hate them or you think they deserve it or expect some gain from it (Heaven in this case), then that isn’t terrorism.

I’m not saying that all acts of public violence committed by Muslims are not terrorism. Some are terrorism. What I am saying is that not ALL such acts are terrorism.  Many are not.  I neglected to make that clear in the OP.

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
27 July 2016 01:48
 

It has been asserted that the political goal of the Islamic State is to bring about a chaos described as the “End of Days”, ushering in the eternal rule of God. Some Christians also want to bring that about, because that seems to be in the cards according to a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2811
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
27 July 2016 03:06
 

As has been stated before, Islamic fundamentalism always has a political component: according to most Muslim scholars, you can not be a good Muslim and not seek a Islamic social order.

ISIS has stated very, VERY clearly that it expects Muslims all over the world to do their part to assist its Caliphate by attacking every member of an opposing country. It regularly claims responsibility for acts it probably has only the most tenuous connection to.
But everyone identifying their violence with the Islam State is committing terror in order to further ISISs goals.

The Orlando shooting might have been only an act of a self-loathing gay trying to purge his demons to get spiritual peace. But by identifying with ISIS he has also invited political interpretations of the act.

In comparison we can see the act of the recent Munich shooter (who was an Iranian/German teen) who really only wanted to go on a rampage with no political ambitious - that was a crime and nothing more.

 
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
29 July 2016 07:19
 
Twissel - 27 July 2016 03:06 AM

The Orlando shooting might have been only an act of a self-loathing gay trying to purge his demons to get spiritual peace. But by identifying with ISIS he has also invited political interpretations of the act.

In comparison we can see the act of the recent Munich shooter (who was an Iranian/German teen) who really only wanted to go on a rampage with no political ambitious - that was a crime and nothing more.

I can see your point. He did self-identify with ISIS at the end. But i would still maintain that labeling it terrorism for this mere reason of inviting political interpretations is a broadening of the term terrorism as I described. 

Take it back to the question I often asked myself during these last few years.  What are these mass murderers trying to accomplish?  What is the end of their acts?  If there is no end beyond the context of the act itself, that is not terrorism.

The Charlie Hebdo shootings are an example of terrorism proper. They were not simply to punish particular people who had insulted the prophet. The purpose was to frighten the rest of society so they wouldn’t do it either.  What was the purpose of the Nice attack?  To scare people into not wearing bikinis?

 

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2811
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
29 July 2016 11:31
 

They are acts of war to decimate the enemy’s troops,  pure and simple.  ISIS has declared that everyone who is not for them is an enemy that needs to be killed.

 
 
tgwaty
 
Avatar
 
 
tgwaty
Total Posts:  11
Joined  06-06-2016
 
 
 
29 July 2016 17:30
 
Twissel - 29 July 2016 11:31 AM

They are acts of war to decimate the enemy’s troops,  pure and simple.  ISIS has declared that everyone who is not for them is an enemy that needs to be killed.

Well then. that’s not terrorism.  If considering beachgoers at Nice enemy combatants were not so ridiculous, we would call it “battle.”  When you kill the enemy because they’re the enemy, that’s not terrorism.  The essence of terrorism is its effect on survivors…

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2811
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
02 August 2016 13:13
 

The key feature of terrorism is that the victims are not the real target,  but are attacked symbolically as stand-ins for the actual target,  be it a government or system.
Orlando was an attack against homosexuals as stand-ins for homosexuality in general.

 
 
 1 2 >