All Muslims Are Not Terrorist But All Terrorist Are Muslim."

[glo]

Perhaps we need to define "terrorism".

Hitler, for example, was an evil man, a mass-murderer and a fascist dictator. But I would never call him a terrorist. Not have I ever heard anybody refer to him as such.

The Free Dictionary says this:

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

The Bader Meinhof group and the IRA were terrorists and were always referred to as such.

 

[Mukafi7]

Salam Brothers and Sisters,

We all know that there is a strong push to demonize Islam. The media is not creating this movement, it is merely a tool being used by those who aim to destroy our faith. Unfortunately for us, the majority of the violent events around the globe has some kind of a relationship to our faith (done in the name of religion or perpetration by so called Muslims). Regardless, it is our duty to lead by example and ignore all the negativity. We CANNOT fall in this trap. they want us to. But, if we rise and lead by example in every which way, we can certainly prove them wrong and tip the balance.

JAK

 

[IAmZamzam]

Back when they were still hot news items over here, perhaps, glo. Nowadays it would be labeled "attacks", "murders", et cetera. Played for drama? Yes. Vilified properly? Yes. Called terrorism? Certainly not.

 

[glo]

Back when they were still hot news items over here, perhaps, glo. Nowadays it would be labeled "attacks", "murders", et cetera. Played for drama? Yes. Vilified properly? Yes. Called terrorism? Certainly not.

I'm not so sure ...

People who unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (or ideological or political reason) are terrorists.

Attempting or threatening to use, say, bombs to cause harm, confusion and chaos at a public event is terrorism.

It would be interesting to look at other attacks and atrocities which are being committed to see if they fit the 'terrorism' label.

People often cite the actions of allied forces in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But interestingly, according to the definition I posted, governments seem almost immune to being called governments - since they make the rules and the laws and are therefore not likely to act 'unlawfully'.

Still, I do not buy into this idea that only Muslims are labelled as terrorists these days ...
I will look out for terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims to see of they are labelled differently. (There is of course also a possibility that there aren't many of such groups active at the moment. As you pointed out, the IRA and Bader Meinhof are (God willing) things of the past)

Now I have written that, the most recent act of terrorism committed by a non-Muslim was Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in 2011.
He was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion, and terrorism in August 2012.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I have recently proposed the idea at Twitter that the very word "terrorism" be dropped entirely from the lexicon. It seems to exist now solely as a term used to villify entire groups (most namely ours) and spread prejudice--even if it may mostly be on a subconscious level. Murderers are murderers, period. Even on a legalistic level I'm sure it can't be too hard to change the matter (and even if it is, tough noogies: the alternative is much worse). After all how much does it even matter whether the guy who splattered sixteen people's guts all over the nearby baby carriage had the intention in mind of threatening society for ideological reasons? How often does that work anyway?

 

[Mustafa2012]

I'm not so sure ...

People who unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments (or ideological or political reason) are terrorists.

Attempting or threatening to use, say, bombs to cause harm, confusion and chaos at a public event is terrorism.

It would be interesting to look at other attacks and atrocities which are being committed to see if they fit the 'terrorism' label.

People often cite the actions of allied forces in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. But interestingly, according to the definition I posted, governments seem almost immune to being called governments - since they make the rules and the laws and are therefore not likely to act 'unlawfully'.

Still, I do not buy into this idea that only Muslims are labelled as terrorists these days ...
I will look out for terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims to see of they are labelled differently. (There is of course also a possibility that there aren't many of such groups active at the moment. As you pointed out, the IRA and Bader Meinhof are (God willing) things of the past)

Now I have written that, the most recent act of terrorism committed by a non-Muslim was Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in 2011.
He was convicted of mass murder, causing a fatal explosion, and terrorism in August 2012.

If we look at some of the things that some governments have been doing recently, it seems that the definition of terrorism can also be applied to what they're doing, don't you?

Only thing is they call it by another name.