Terrorist proclaimed insane

[Amica]

Well, at least if you are of a certain religion, then you are "insane," and therefore do not need to be in jail for your crime. And no one dares to call you a terrorist of your religion either. I am speaking of the Norweigan "christian" terrorist, Breivik.

Just recently, a guy classified a terrorist was shooting at a building in Sarajevo, specifically on the U.S. embassy building. He paced up and down the street for 45 minutes holding a gun. Did not attempt to shoot a person, it seems because in those 45 minutes he could have. Then, the police units surrounded him and he proceeded to shoot at the wall of the embassy only to have himself wounded. His reason? So that someone else kills him "in the way of God." To me, that does not sound like a sane person. Yet, he is immediately declared "islamic" terrorist. And what else is not new, the court would not allow some of the evidence from his defense team to be presented, mainly the fact that the guy (according to his lawyer, and bosnian TV news) said that he wanted someone to kill him, not that he kills someone else.

Strange how peopel are treated differently, only depending on their supposed religious identifications.

And by the way, I think it is abusive to any religion (Islam, or any other) for terrorism to have its prefix.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

And by the way, I think it is abusive to any religion (Islam, or any other) for terrorism to have its prefix.

tell that to those who kill in the name of their religion.

 

[Amica]

But not all of the members of the religions are like the ones who commit such crimes. And even if we want to give terrorism a religious prefix, then why not do it with all other religions? Why is there only "islamic" terrorism, but not "christian" terrorism. For years no one ever heard of Lords Army for instance. I am pretty sure that in the West, 90% of people still do not know what LA is. Only recently did Obama classify it as a terrorist organization of certain Christians who believe in murder of anyone who is not like them. They rape, murder and plunder in Africa in the name of Jesus. My local paper only designated tiny little article to Obama's statement. And how many Americans read the local papers, anyway?

 

[bananabrain]

amica,

i think your problem is with people's ignorance, not with imprecise terminology.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

i suppose as long as the people we call terrorists have a strong religious identity the term will be easily applied for propaganda uses and in some case i'm pretty sure its appropriate

if you want a different type of rhetoric and propaganda try the Iranian news it turns Western News upside down.

 

[radarmark]

Ever since terrorism was (arguably) invented by Michael Collins in Ireland, only he and Nelson Mandela (and their immediate followers) ever put it down voluntarily, to my knowledge. Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. If it is done "in the name of religion" (Godse shooting Gandhiji or Breivik or bin Lauden) it is still more reprehensible than murder... perhaps even more so than "civil" terrorism in Ruwanda, Sri Lanka, or Kampuchea. So perhaps "religious terror" (violence targeted at civilians for ideological and religious reasons) is worse than "civil terror" (violence targeted at civilians for ideological but non-religious reasons) is worse than "state terror" (war and other military actions) is worse than "personal terror" (murder).

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[Amica]

Terrorists are all the same, I believe, regardless to which group they want to belong to. If all the good people would to denounce them and alienate them that would be so much easier.

What I am trully tired of is the governments using prefix "islamic" for terrorism as if it is Islam that produced terrorism. Any crazy ba***rd can use anything to be an excuse for terrorism.