Not all terrorists are Arabs....

[castille]

Well this is the first time I have seen a news article about non-Arab terrorists. Ironically it isn't written by an American media paper. Its basically about a bunch of Japanese terrorists who tried to attack China's consulate in Tokyo.

I read the original Chinese version from an email my old schoolfriend sent to me. I managed to dig up the English version for your viewing.

Source: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200404/2...23_141323.shtml

A large vehicle belonging to a Japanese right-wing group rammed the front gate of the Chinese Consulate General in Osaka early Friday, but no one was injured in the event, according to the Chinese Embassy.

The ram at about 3:35 a.m.(1835 GMT) set fire to the vehicle and badly damaged the gate, said Huang Xingyuan, a spokesman of the Chinese Embassy.

Some quotes from angry Chinese viewers:

Source: http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/forumpost.sht...ml?toppid=84036

I think we Chinese should united and do something in "reciprocity" to the Japanese, who grow to be more and more and more rampant, arrogant, and indifferent to our friendliness to them.

(Written by "Tintin")

It's the time to make the national spirit to stand up and return like for like. Otherwise China will always be the crying one while without any action.

(Written by Echoecho)

Actually I think this guy has the same username as that other Chinese dude who hacked into some Japanese site or something....talk about conicidence!

[Mia]

This is the first time you've heard of non-arab terrorists?

[peace_hawk]

I'm amazed by two things.
A) this is the best "terrorism" they could come up with? I understand (as much as an outsider can) the historic animosity between Japan and China but to crash the gate with a bus? Sounds like a fraternity prank on the Dean's residence to me. At least throw some "Made in China" products soaked in animal blood or feces or something onto the front lawn.

B) The Japanese government needed to apoligize for this! I'm the first person to think that national pride is over-rated but please! When you bomb someone's embassy you apoligize for your AMAZING stupidity and the senseless loss of life. Some nuts crash their van into the gate you say, "There nuts. We know you would 're-educate' them or put a bullet in the brain but we are going to make them pay (financially) for the damaage done." You apoligize for that which you are responsible, not when some incompetant zealots wreck a van.

Of course these probably mean I don't "get" why this is such a big deal. Could someone with more of an Asian background fill in the gaps?

[castille]

It is not as "light" as crashing into the embassy. The bus was set on fire - so the intention was probably to firebomb the Chinese embassy. If the fire was not put out the entire embassy staff would have been burnt alive. If you look at the bus you'll notice it is blackened at the front where the main firebombs were set.

If you take the time to read the words written on the bus, you'll know why it is serious.

Sounds like a fraternity prank on the Dean's residence to me

I have never seen college students ram a bus with firebombs into an American embassy for a "prank". Where do you go to college, Osama's Education Camp?

This is the first time you've heard of non-arab terrorists?

Yep. First time I seen it. I've only heard of African non-Arab terrorists from history classes - they were talking about the 60s. (Although some people say that Jews are all terrorists, whatever thats supposed to mean).

[Suburbanite]

You haven't heard of S. American Terrorists? Columbia, Panama, Mexico, and other countries are riddled with them.

[castille]

I've rarely seen a news report about South American groups (ie. that Marxist Columbia group, didnt they call themselves the FIA? FIAK? FCK?). Most news seems to be focused on the Arabs, Americans, and cult groups.

[Suburbanite]

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). And yes, most news is based on Arab Terrorists, they did blow up the World Trade Center.

[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.

[Mia]

Originally posted by castille, I've rarely seen a news report about South American groups (ie. that Marxist Columbia group, didnt they call themselves the FIA? FIAK? FCK?). Most news seems to be focused on the Arabs, Americans, and cult groups.

Hello...so what the media chooses to focus on is all there is?

How about a different kind of American terrorists?

animal rights groups...

Environmentalists...

Anti-abortion....

These groups assasinate, blow up buildings...that is terrorism.

[Mia]

You never heard of the KKK, Castille?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Well, yeah, the KKK is on the terrorist list along with another 300 groups or so. But I hardly think that the pathetic group that remains of them is much of a threat to anybody. I suspect that the media's love of mentioning their name does more harm to endanger race relations than the KKK is capable of anymore.

Face it, they are a dead organization. Membership was less than 20k last time I heard. The society of women engineers could probably kick their collective ass.

[Mia]

Oh, I agree. But people act like Arab Muslims invented terrorism or something which is bizzare.


The KKK was a huge threat in it's time. It had police, legislaters, etc. in their pockets and did whatever the hell they wanted. Until Eisenhower said "no more" and when the states refused to indite or find guilty, the federal government did so (finally).

And this was a "Christian" organization. It wasn't only blacks. It was Jews, Catholics, and I forget who else.

Oh, anyone who opposed them or stood by the groups of people they were against.

Plenty of wacked-out Jewish terrorists to throw in.


However, soon after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Rubin was indicted for allegedly planning to bomb a California mosque and an Arab-America congressman's office. Facing life in prison, Rubin committed suicide in November 2002.

..................

According to the FBI, the JDL was responsible for at least 37 terrorist acts in the United States in the period from 1968-1983, while the International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE) database developed on behalf of the United States Central Intelligence Agency by Edward F. Mickolus recorded 50 such incidents from 1968-1987, making the JDL second only to the Puerto Rican FALN (q.v.) as the major domestic terrorist group. Nonetheless the JDL is a legally incorporated political action group and has officially disavowed responsibility for any violent actions carried out by its members. Bombings accounted for 78 percent of all JDL terrorist activities; shootings accounted for 16 percent; while arson attacks, vandalism, kidnapping, threats, and verbal harassment accounted for the rest.

THE JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE ("JDL") AND IRV RUBIN

[white rice]

Originally posted by 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.

[Mia]

I think we should only say terrorists until we know who the group was and then call it by name. The constant repitition of "Islamic terrorists" over and over is what makes everyone believe they are the only ones.

More importantly, it makes it sound like Islam has something to do with terrorism, which it does not.

A Muslim in an interview recently said he would not dignify those people by calling them Islamic terrorists - and that hit home with me.

These people may use Islam in their names and as a reason for their actions, but it is as BS as the KKK using the Bible to kill blacks.

They are not remotely acting in accordance with Islam and should simply be called terrorists.

THEN we have to tackle how when an Arab kills someone it's terrorism, but when US or Israel does it is "in response."

What they do is "in response" too. What we do is "terrorism" too.

[SVMc]

Great points Mia.

The problem is that mainstream media focuses goes through "fads" of terrorism. The most direct enemy will receive the most "terrorist" press. So right now the Arabs are being labled "terrorists" largely in response to Gulf War I, 9/11 and Gulf War the Sequal.

In the 1980's there was a lot of American media on S. American and specifically Colombian, Nicaraguan and Salvadorian "terrorists".

And further back in the 1960's and 1970's when the British and American ties were much stronger the main press was Irish "terrorism"... remember all those movies "In the name of the father" where Irish terrorists were going to build nuclear bombs and blow up London and Washington?

The plot dosen't change only the names of the players.

[castille]

Wasnt "In the name of the father" pro-IRA? They were talking about people being framed by the British government for terrorism or something.

The Crying Game is good too.


But you're right - the Western media tends to focus around "trends". Terrorists always exist - Japanese groups, KKK, FARC, etc etc. However since I'm Generation Y I've never seen non-Arab terrorists on any Western media (although the extremist media paints anyone who disagree with them as terrorists - I think Richard Branson got a mention).

[Mia]

Well most of the terrorism right now IS committed by those calling themselves Islamic. That can't be disputed.

But the way it's talked about has created the idea that Arabs/Muslims are terrorist type people, which is not true.

mia,


Come on..... :rolleyes:

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by 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.

They are terrorists, you can't get around it. Calling them Marxist is the real problem, because they clearly aren't.