Originally posted by: Sultan
0roo0roo
well, put it this way, 8% of worlds population is the middle east. only 2% of worlds economic output. 66-70% of worlds terrorist production.
First, your statement depends on your definition of terrorists. You have not called Bush a terrorist for killing 13000 Iraqis on a war waged based on lies. Nor is Ariel Sharon a terrorist. Read up on his terrorist acts. Second, Middle East does NOT represent all of Islam or all the Muslims. And lastly, I dont understand the relevance of their economic output to this argument. Lets just say it does have relevance... shut down their output and the whole world is a mess, no oil, no economic growth for the entire world.
My definition of terrorism is different from yours. With your definition, everybody is a terrorist. Iraq is a terrorist for killing so many Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War. Iran is a terrorist for killing so many Iraqis in return. Japan, Germany, Italy etc were terrorists in WW2. So were the US, England, France, Russia for fighting back. Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc were terrorists when they attacked the newly formed Israel. Israel is a terrorist for fighting back.
For me, I make a distinction in times of war. The rules are a little different for war time. When the war is over, we go back to the usual rules. At this point, I think terrorists usually have the following characteristics:
1) They are a small minority of the population. They don't really represent any country. They don't really have an army.
2) They specifically target civilians.
3) They usually have some sort of political agenda like establishing a new rule or new independent country yet they don't really represent the majority of the population.
The IRA fits the example of a terrorist group to me. Same with the Basque separatists. Same with Hamas.
There's a fine hazy line between freedom fighter and terrorists, like you said. My definition of freedom fighter would be someone who doesn't specifically target civilians. Instead they go after military targets. I think the Iraqi insurgency are mostly freedom fighters (but they have been infiltrated with a lot of foreign terrorists).
For me you can call Sharon a brutal occupier but I don't consider him a terrorist. Same with Saddam. Saddam was a brutal ruler but to me, he was not a terrorist. And George Bush is not a terrorist in my definition.
I think this redefinition of "terrorism" is similar to the redefinition of racism that I recently heard. According to some people, racism can only occur with people in power -- therefore blacks cannot be racists. because white people are in power.
There is a very real problem that most of today's terrorists are Islamic terrorists. I think some people are trying to hide this by changing the definition so that everybody is a terrorist.
I really wish society would stop sympathizing with terrorists. It's a political method that doesn't seem to work. All it does is make life miserable for everyone.
I am absolutely convinced that if Israel didn't have to worry about suicide bombings then there would be no "humilating checkpoints", no bulldozing of houses, and life would be so much better for the Palestinians.
I am absolutely convinced that the method of peaceful protests works. It worked for the civil rights movement in the US. It worked with the anti-aparteid movement in South Africa.
I have never seen the method of terrorism work. So why glorify it in some cultures? All it does is make the Palestinians seem less human to me. If all the suicide bombings would stop, then it would be much harder to crack down on Israel to abide by the UN. It's hard for me to go up to Israel and say, "Hey, stop it with those humilating checkpoints and let the Palestinians live their lives in dignity" when I can fully understand why they have those checkpoints.