Take, for example, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. They were most likely mentally ill. Saddam Hussein was severely abused and exposed to horrors growing up. Hitler was a mad man. Even so, their ideological motives were evil.
Put another way: Say that .00001% of people are so screwed up in the head that they buy into an ethos that advocates the killing of others. Some of those people buy into radical islam and the concept of jihad, some of those people buy into radical christianity and the idea of murdering abortion doctors, some of those people buy into anti-black propaganda and the idea of killing black people, and some of those people buy into anti-government propaganda and the idea of killing government employees. We've seen this play out with people like Nadal Hasan, Scott Roeder, Lawrence Russel Brewer, and Timothy McVeigh. Do all these individuals qualify as "terrorists?"
There is nothing to suggest that either of these people were mentally ill. And it would be kind of hard to take control of an entire country without being in their right mind.
Evil =/= insane.
Based on legal definitions of terrorism I'm inclined to believe that the answer is "yes".
I think there's a lot of overlap. In my opinion, terrorist groups have a lot of mentally ill people. The leadership exploits mentally ill youth to accomplish their goals.
Take, for example, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. They were most likely mentally ill. Saddam Hussein was severely abused and exposed to horrors growing up. Hitler was a mad man. Even so, their ideological motives were evil.
This Hasan was influenced by violent underpinnings of a sizable minority faction of Islam. Of that I'm certain.
Labels have shifting meanings. Language is fluid. It really doesn't matter to me whether he gets the specific label of terrorist or not. I still think that there is a sizable element within Islam that encourages violence in the name of Allah against infidels.
Based on legal definitions of terrorism I'm inclined to believe that the answer is "yes".
You're kidding, right... :rofl
By the legal definition, certainly neither of them were.
By other definitions, most of us probably are, depending upon who is doing the defining.
It's a rather meaningless term, actually. Mental illness.
Similarly, there is an element within Christianity that encourages violence in the name of God against abortion doctors, an element within the racist community that encourages violence in the name of a pure race against blacks, and an element within the anti-government community that encourages violence in the name of a free society against government employees.
I'm trying to determine how these these examples can be logically distinguished from the Islamic example, if they can. Is it simply a matter of proportions?
See, while Christian religious texts encourage violence, the majority stopped being violent and actually practice the 'turn the other cheek' strategy (Ya know, Kill 'em with kindness.) Islam is the other way around, they practice what their scripts say and only a few of them have progressed to the worldwide community idea of tolerance of religions not their own.
So anyone who commits a hate crime is a terrorist? Does it depend on whether people are killed or not?
See, while Christian religious texts encourage violence, the majority stopped being violent and actually practice the 'turn the other cheek' strategy (Ya know, Kill 'em with kindness.) Islam is the other way around, they practice what their scripts say and only a few of them have progressed to the worldwide community idea of tolerance of religions not their own.
That is not true at all. Christian texts do not nor have they ever condoned conversion by the sword. That was man warping the OT into something it is not.
Do not blame the Bible for being used for unintended purposes.
There are a few fringe Christian groups that practice violence in America, but it's definitely less mainstream in Christianity. There is plenty of opportunity, with very few incidences. But this isn't the first attack by Muslims in the military on their fellow soldiers, and they are a tiny minority in the Military. It's concerning.
Well, it probably depends on whether there was an attempt to kill people.
It also, I think, depends on whether the attack is a pre-meditated attempt to instill terror on people of the race in question, or just committed in the heat of hate-filled passion.
McVeigh was anti-government. His religion of origin (I think he was baptized and raised Catholic) wasn't any factor in his attack.
That is not true at all. Christian texts do not nor have they ever condoned conversion by the sword. That was man warping the OT into something it is not.
Do not blame the Bible for being used for unintended purposes.
There are a sprinkling of verses that are most likely allegorical in nature, but by and large the New Testament encourage believers to pray for their enemies and heap only coals of kindness on their heads.
But here we run into the same problem as before - you seem to be saying that the question of whether what Hasan/Roeder/Brewer/McVeigh did constitutes terrorism is dependent on the actions of unrelated individuals spread across the globe.
This seems like one of the most logically defensible positions that has been offered. I don't know that it would be the position that most people would initially agree with, but I'm certainly swayed by it.
Huh. This might be the first time in my entire DP history that I've actually swayed someone's position on an issue.
Oh so you have access to the Papal Archives??? Ooooh, I'd love to hear what all those hippie Popes were writing about to the many Missionaries and Crusaders abroad!
Terrorism is based on the actual Terrorist, their views, and their method of the attack/act. It goes no deeper than that unless you are trying to decide if an Organization as a whole or in part is a terrorist organization. Each case of terrorism must be looked at closely, then decided upon. There is no template or stereotype for a Terrorist. That's like saying there is a template for guerrillas.
What do the "Papal Archives" have to do with the Bible? The Bible outside of the Apocrypha and mistranslation has not been changed since it's inception by the Emperor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?