That would be a terrorist attack by one Govt/country on another govt/country, supported by (at the time) popular public opinion, would it not?
That said, given any definition of terrorism (once you remove which organisations are capable of terrorism), I've little doubt that the invasion of Iraq would fall into it's definition.
JLNobody wrote: Whatever we say about the products of Islamic madrassas we can also say about the protestant christian fundamentalists. If the latter could take control if our government they, too, would pose dangers to the world no less fierce than those of the so-called "islamofacists".
Nickfun wrote: I suppose it would be just as easy to replce "Muslim" with "Christianity".
ZoSo wrote:ZoSo : So what if ten percent of muslim people are radicalised. They would say the same about fundamentalist christians.
Replies like this are the reason I said :
Vikorr wrote:The only problem is that we in the West dont' really pay much attention to it, so we don't really know much.
They show a lack of knowledge about the founding teachings of Islam, in relation to how to spread it.
The founding father of Islam spread it by conversion and the Sword, saying it was their duty to convert by any means possible, including convert or die techniques. When he suffered a military defeat he said that if you were faced with a militarily stronger enemy (that would be the west at the moment) to convert through any means possible, and bide your time until you were stronger than your enemy. That is a fundamental of Islam (even so, in regional situations, you are often seeing wars by people
The founding father of Christianity spread it through conversion, and preached peace (even if his followers didn't always follow such) - that is a 'fundamental' of Christianity.
Such replies also ignore the difference where for Islam : The religion is the Govt/Country, and for Christianity, we have a doctrine of separation of the powers (even though in practicality Christianity intrudes into Govt - thankfully it is somewhat limited)
It ignores that if you are not Muslim in a Muslim country, you are treated as a second class citizen (imigration issues aside due to their complexity - this attitude is not prevalent in Christian countries).
It ignores that if you choose to change religions from Islam to another religion, you are under a death setence (though that seems to be an issue more in some countries than others - I have seen a number of articles of such)
It ignores that Muslim mosques in Christian countries are safe, while Christian churches in Muslim countries aren't (the example that springs to mind, is the numerous Christian churches that were razed in Indonesia a few years back)
I'm sure there are other aspects such ignores, that I haven't thought of at the moment.
It doesn't help that people don't seem to recognise the difference between a fundamentalist and a person who practices a radicalised form of religion.
Aperson wrote:The conflict between Islam and the West spawned from a very simple fact - in their society, the state and the church are integrated! They do not understand us, and we do not understand them, because the way our religion and our government interact is very different from theirs.
Pretty much the same point I made, though better stated.
Aperson wrote:It is very important that we understand that, in their eyes, the attacks on the Middle East by America are actually attacks on Islam by Christianity. For them, it amounts to the same thing. Their country is their religion. This is why there are so many Islam-spurred terrorist attacks - they are just responding to the attacks on their church.
This isn't quite true. There's a LOT of history that has contributed to the current situation.
For example, many people don't know that the West (France & England mainly) created the borders for the ME Countries as they are today (mostly). Many people don't know that Bagdad ruled Kuwait for 2000 years before that new distribution of borders (Desert Storm anyone?). Many people don't grasp the connection between the CIA coup in Iran (of a democratically elected president, and Times 1951 man of the year), and Irans current hardline anti-western stance (as well as being the roots of ME terror during the 70's and early 80's). Other coups and attempted coups also. Many don't grasp that "Once a muslim land, always a muslim land), and don't grasp either (or ignore), the thorn in Islams pride that is Israel, and (in Islams view) the Wests support and backing of that Thorn. They don't grasp how it nettles Islamic pride that a number of their rulers are seen as Western Puppets (Saudi Arabia springs to mind), and that a number of countries have US bases on them (Saudi Again, Pakistan sort of, and there's a couple of others if I remember right). There's other things I'm sure, that I can't think of off the top of my head. Oh yes, another - the coincidence in Pakistan that the only 3 anti western presidents they've had, have been quickly assisinated.