Not all terrorists are Arabs....

[Mia]

Originally posted by StoneWT, mia, Come on..... :rolleyes:

Come on... what?

[za3boot]

There are 22 Arabs country and many of them are friends to your country so just sticking terrorism to "Arabs" really is unfair! and let's say racist!
I won't be talking about the North American groups that were mentioned earlier in this thread but hey man, when the FBI building were blasted by some Americans back in the 90s why weren't they considered terrorist? why the guys was called "psycho" and that's it!! if he was an Arab or of an Arab ancestors then terrorism would be announced!! ok I'm not saying that people like Bin Laden are not terrorist but ...didn't this guys for instance worked for your government before? wasn't he trained by the USG?? so once he's against you he becomes terrorist and all the people who speak his language and belief of his religion!
I'm sure non of you really knows anything about the Arab nations.... terror exists in everywhere but see the politics and the media have such a big role in focusing on one side of the issue.....and your media is the strongest......guys I'm from Syria and live in the capital Damascus....trust me, for a country called as a terrorist county by your media and government, I can walk in my city as safe as non of you can ever be in your homelands.....

Just wanted to reply regarding the title not the content!

Cheers!

[white rice]

Timothy McVeigh was a right-wing terrorist who was convicted for the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90s

In the 90s, Aun Shin Rikyo released sarin gas in a Tokyo subway.

IIRC, they recieved a fair amount of media coverage.

[rmnunez]

Not all terrorists are Arabs, we've got Basque "etarratas" in Spain, Corsican irredentists in France, Peruvians in the Sendero Luminoso, die-hard IRA nationalists in Ireland, and assorted Muslims in a variety of Palestinian, Philippino, Turkish, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, Indonesian, etc., terrorist groups. Are most terrorists Arabs, or even Muslim? I doubt it, but it can't be denied Arab terrorists are of particular concern to the US just now.

The "global war on terrorism" is concerned with "international terrorism" (the sort that victimizes people of a different nationality than the terrorist). It makes sense for the US-led Coalition to focus first on international terrorism because among the non-international terrorists there could be legitimate movements for self-determination. Such 'movements' could not lawfully resort to terrorism, but the degree with which they may be repressed is uncertain. International terrorism is already penalized in 14 multinational treaties deposited at the UN, we've got agreement "all necessary means" should be employed in erradicating them.

[SVMc]

I think an interesting phenomenon to look at is the way that American terrorism is framed in America vs. what is perceived as foreign terrorism.

What I mean is that Timothy McVeigh and earlier home grown terrorists were painted in the lone gun-man (bomb-man) theory. These were black sheep, socially mal-adjusted, and so on and so forth.

Where as when it is a foreign group (Arabs, Peruvians, Muslims, IRA etc... etc..) we begin to classify *them* as a terrorist group. We begin to talk about terrorist cultures. We have to have discussions similar to this one.... Why?

[Mia]

It's too complicated to realize all the "enemies" that come in so many shaped and sizes. Easier to have one to blame everything on!

[rmnunez]

Terrorism is ill-defined and the greatest difficulties relate to insurgencies and rebellions which claim self-determination. Separatist movements, to the extent they seek independence from some colonial oppressor, are entitled to international recognition and support. It is not clear the same would apply to those seeking to govern themselves based on pure ideology (socialists or environmentalists for example). Islamic fundamentalists certainly are not seeking to cast off some colonial oppressor, but their ideology is much more religious than political.

The American effort now is directed at Islamic fundamentalists. This is because among the terrorists, fundamentalists most often target the US. To make this effort more attractive to foreigners whose support is needed, the focus is on "international" terrorism (that which victimizes foreigners). In places like Sri Lanka or Corsica, there are terrorists, but they only attack their oppressor. These independence movements, seccesionists, "freedom fighters" or insurgents, may be more or less revolutionary in their ideology, but it makes no difference for purposes of putting them on a target list for intervention or something -all that matters is killing foreigners.

Though these "freedom fighters" sometimes are indistinguishable in their conduct from Islamic fundamentalists, the comparative paucity of foreign victims allows those involved in the effort to relegate dealing with these terrorists for later.

[jcgadfly]

Originally posted by white rice,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (white rice,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-castille, The issue is, is it politically correct to call South American terrorists what they are? A lot of them are more left-wing and Marxist (and by name they are "peaceful"), so I would imagine many American institutions would find it un-PC.

If you want delineating categories, you can label them as secular terrorist as opposed to the religious fundamentalist terrorists. A terrorist is a terrorist, anyways. Those Palestinian terrorists would be considered secular terrorists even with the word plays on Zionism and suicide bombings for Allah.[/b][/quote]

America already has delineating categories for terrorists. If they work for America, they're freedom fighters. If they don't, they're terrorists.

Same with the word "extremist". If the terrorist is a WASP, he's a poor, misguided soul. Otherwise, he's an extremist.

[Mia]

or a psycho....

[Impenitent]

or a left wing tree hugging environmentalist...

unabomber

[rmnunez]

Classification of terrorists stems from difficulty in tackling them all at once and a need to prioritize efforts. A terrorist attack is not different because of the reasons behind it, but the Americans are chasing Al Qaeders while the Shining Path (Maoist Peruvians) seem to be getting a free ride, how come?

Some say its because the Al Qaeders are Muslims, but it is likely due to their role in 911. The formal explanation is because the Islamic fundamentalists are "international" while the Shining Path only incidentally so. Comentators may describe similar conduct differently depending on their sympathy to the 'cause' of their favorites, but ideology, religion, economic background or ethnicity of the terrorists has nothing to do with an objective description of their conduct.

[arram]

What is and is not terrorist needs to be clearly defined and applied to whomever commits the acts rather than the current policy of calling Arabs terrorists and everyone else 'defenders', or what have you, for similar actions.

There's no doubt Arabs commit terrorist acts. (Al-Queda, etc.)Though I personally would not call them Arabs or Muslims, I would not label them human.

Those fighting occupation are a bit more complicated. Traditionally, any people will do whatever they have to to defend their land.

But when USA hires tha Al-Queda types to work for them, and then labels Syria a terrorist-sponsor for supporting groups against a nation we are at war with, that is hypocracy.

We do so in the open, and we have a right to it. Just as US has a right to defend itself.

[Mia]

Originally posted by arram, What is and is not terrorist needs to be clearly defined and applied to whomever commits the acts...

We need a whole thread devoted to this and a consensus reached to better discuss so many other topics that our different definitions of terrorism hang up the debate on.

[rmnunez]

Axis of Evil Evildoing, Bald-Faced lie or Righteous Sovereign Relations?

>A military specialist on Korean affairs revealed that the Syrian technicians were killed in the explosion in Ryongchon in the northwestern part of the country, according to the Sankei Shimbun. The specialist said the Syrians were accompanying "large equipment" and that the damage from the explosion was greatest in the portion of the train they occupied. The source said North Korean military personnel with protective suits responded to the scene soon after the explosion and removed material only from the Syrians' section of the train. The (ten) technicians were from the Syrian technical research center called Centre d'Etudes et de Recherche Scientific (CERS). Although CERS was established to promote science and technology development, it has been viewed as a major player in Syria's weapons of mass destruction development program.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/b...reaking_10.html

[samsara15]

The Irish in Belfast certainly qualify. The Contras were terrorists. The Death Squads were terrrorists. The SS may have been considered terrorists, athough they were a government organization. Various abortion clinic bombers are trrorists.

[rmnunez]

I'd rate anti-abortionist bombers as terrorists, same for the IRA (rather than "the Irish in Belfast"). "Death Squads" is a term applied to government assasins in Latin America these would be the only ones in doubt. Terrorism usually does not involve stealth which is a prevailing tactic with Death Squads. Terrorists want you to know they did it, they call to claim responsibility for their heinous deeds. Ever heard of some "Death Squad" announcing their latest 'accomplishment'? The "Contras" were an armed group with US support who opposed the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, why would these be "terrorists", does foreign backing make the difference or was the moral conduct of the guerrilla by Contras so much worse than that of their enemy?