Terrorists

[*KB*]

my lovely brothers and sisters what iz happening?

anywayz...:rollseyes i wanted to to get something off my chest for a long time.
do u kno when muslims bomb any white (please don't get offended) countries they call us terrorists. but what do they call themselves when they bomb muslim countries ..Peace?..Goodness?
so brothers and sisters i just wanted to kno if any of you were thinking the same.

Peace be upon you all

*KB*
:rose:

 

[KAding]

my lovely brothers and sisters what iz happening?

anywayz...:rollseyes i wanted to to get something off my chest for a long time.
do u kno when muslims bomb any white (please don't get offended) countries they call us terrorists. but what do they call themselves when they bomb muslim countries ..Peace?..Goodness?
so brothers and sisters i just wanted to kno if any of you were thinking the same.

Peace be upon you all

*KB*
:rose:

Thats because of two things:
1. The terrorist are non-state actors, while in the current world order states are supposed to have a monopoly on violence.
2. The way targets are chosen. It is clear that recent terror attacks in India, Bali, Spain, London and the US all had civilians as their primary target. It wasn't just that these civilians were unlucky to be near to a military target, no, they were the target.

I know this answer won't satisfy you. But the first reason I have given is really the most important. Nobody ever called, say, Turkish attacks against Kurds "terrorism". Neither did we "white people" ever call Saddams crackdown in Iraqi Shiites "terrorism". Nor did we call Jordanian tactics during Black September "terrorism". Similarly Western countries don't call Israeli tactics in Lebanon "terrorism".

So the central issue is the monopoly of the state on violence. Private individuals or groups simply don't have the right to wage war, and when they do they will quickly be labeled terrorists. In a way this is very understandable, because the world would be a much worse place if not only states, but also private armies would be allowed to wage wars.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

do u kno when muslims bomb any white (please don't get offended) countries they call us terrorists. but what do they call themselves when they bomb muslim countries ..Peace?..Goodness?
so brothers and sisters i just wanted to kno if any of you were thinking the same.

I think everyone is beginning to figure that out. It's all so one-sided. That's why I took on the subject of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. He was getting slaughtered in the press... because he wasn't on our side. All these accusations about his indiscriminant killing of innocents mean absolutely NOTHING if you read some of the military reports I have of our own campaigns. It's just the pot calling the kettle black again. A rule we all supposedly learned in Nursery School.

Kicks chair across the room... what's a mother to do?

Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Private individuals or groups simply don't have the right to wage war, and when they do they will quickly be labeled terrorists. In a way this is very understandable, because the world would be a much worse place if not only states, but also private armies would be allowed to wage wars.

You know KAding, that's the most intelligent explanation I've heard of to-date that explains how the label (terrorism) works. I'm not sure I agree, because the East is not the West and it is a tribal land before anything else, but that certainly explains how the West percieves the issue! Thank you!

This also explains why the Jihad is so unstable. Because it was triggered by a small collection of groups who had no right to speak for all the others. Unless there is AGREEMENT on the whole, it will never become anything more than a handful of 'insurgent' battles and they'll most likely end up fighting each other.

Ninth Scribe