[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I know this is a joke, but the sad truth is that many people think of muslims/arabs when they hear the word terrorist.[/quote]
I wonder what ever led them to associate the two? Perhaps it has something to do with the 17000+ seperate Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 carried out by Muslims, in the name of their religion and whilst yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’?
Perhaps if Hindus had flown commercial airliners into skyscrapers and committed 17000+ seperate terrorist attacks in the last decade yelling ‘om mani padme hum’ and claiming religious justification for said attacks we’d associate Hindus with terrorism? Or is that too far fetched?[/quote]
Funny you should mention hindus. There have been prognom like actions against muslims in India, carryed out by hindus. I will try to find a source if you dont believe.
You seem like a guy who knows history sexmachine, and you should therefor also know that the term terroist have been used against enemys in many occasions, the british called for example george washington a terrorist. And our arab friend on this site is partly right: muslim para-militarys are called terrorist when they fight soldiers( wich is not an act of terrorism ), while israely, american or norwegian military personel are called soldiers when they perform terrorist acts( the bombing of gaza a few years ago was most definitly an act of terrorism, because the goal was to inflict death and terror on the population of gaza to scare them ). I dont no wich definition of terrorism you use, but mine is: civillian targets with the goal of inflicting terror/fear in the enemys. with that definition USA is a terroist state becuase of the nuclear attack on hiroshima and nagazaki, but nobody in the west defines america as an terrorist state because of this terrorist act and other horrible acts. And that probably because USA and the other western countrys are allys and because what defines USA is much more than terrorism. The same is true for HAMAS, FATHA ect, theire friends probably dont call them terrorists. They are probably looked on as political movements. Also for them who know HAMAS and FATHA more closely than from the idiotbox. The point is that most military organisations( be it states or non-state organisations ) perform or have performed terrorist acts and if we should call one terrorist, we must call all terrorists if we want to stay consistent.
[/quote]
You are trying way too much to draw comparisons just so you can equivalize. America didn’t just come along one day and drop a nuke on Japan without provocation or reason. There was a war going on that had been started by Japan and civilians in cities had been targeted for years. The government of Japan people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a reasonable expectation that they could be next at any time.
What makes a terrorist is using the freedom of movement in a civil society to set up attacks on people who have no reasonable expectation of being attacked. We don’t make muslims wear signs so we can identify them on the street and have check points to regularly search them. They are free to come and go unmolested in our society.
What you are calling para-militarys and comparing to our army are people who are not wearing a uniform so they can use the protection that is given to civilians to make sneak attacks and escape. Again it is an abuse of our civility. And NO these are not groups that are comparatively equal.
You claim that you are merely trying to maintain consistency, which is bollocks. You are deliberately trying to muddy the waters to the point that no one can say anyone is in the right or wrong, when that isn’t the case.