Quote:

---

Youshouldknowabc said:
Quite a stupid view if you ask me. There are many white terrorists too who aren't Muslim. No?

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
I heard someone say this today while talking about the latest Islamist terrorist attempt in Tampa, just up the state from where I live.

What do you think about that sentiment?

---

Quote:

---

PatrickKn said:
Not all extremists are terrorists, but all terrorists are extremists. Unless you're a pirate.

---

Argh! 

Quote:

---

qman said:
Remember the conflict in Ireland over religion, lots of terrorism for a group of Christians.

---

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
I blame propaganda and peoples lazy thinking habits.

---

Quote:

---

In Philosophy in a Time of Terror, in a discussion of the opposition between
“war” and “terrorism,” Jacques Derrida tells Giovanna Borradori that the
terms themselves are unstable and have a political history that must be
rigorously examined:

Semantic instability, irreducible trouble spots on the borders between
concepts, indecision in the very concept of the border: all this must
not only be analysed as a speculative disorder, a conceptual chaos or
zone of passing turbulence in public or political language. We must
also recognise here strategies and relations of force. The dominant
power is the one that manages to impose and, thus, to legitimate,
indeed to legalise (for it is always a question of law) on a national or
world stage, the terminology and thus the interpretation that best
suits it in a given situation.

(Borradori, 2003, p. 105)

He cites two examples of how the terms “war” and “terrorism” have
been manipulated in historical circumstances in order to fulfil certain
political goals. One is the retrospective definition by the French
parliament in the 1990s of the Algerian War as an international war,
and not a domestic conflict, so veterans would have access to certain
classes of military entitlements (p. 104); the other, the insistence of the
US government that any resistance to the established governments of
South America be denoted as terrorism (p. 105).

---

Quote:

---

quinn said:

Quote:

---

In Philosophy in a Time of Terror, in a discussion of the opposition between
“war” and “terrorism,” Jacques Derrida tells Giovanna Borradori that the
terms themselves are unstable and have a political history that must be
rigorously examined:

Semantic instability, irreducible trouble spots on the borders between
concepts, indecision in the very concept of the border: all this must
not only be analysed as a speculative disorder, a conceptual chaos or
zone of passing turbulence in public or political language. We must
also recognise here strategies and relations of force. The dominant
power is the one that manages to impose and, thus, to legitimate,
indeed to legalise (for it is always a question of law) on a national or
world stage, the terminology and thus the interpretation that best
suits it in a given situation.

(Borradori, 2003, p. 105)

He cites two examples of how the terms “war” and “terrorism” have
been manipulated in historical circumstances in order to fulfil certain
political goals. One is the retrospective definition by the French
parliament in the 1990s of the Algerian War as an international war,
and not a domestic conflict, so veterans would have access to certain
classes of military entitlements (p. 104); the other, the insistence of the
US government that any resistance to the established governments of
South America be denoted as terrorism (p. 105).

---

found this interesting.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

qman said:
Remember the conflict in Ireland over religion, lots of terrorism for a group of Christians.

---

It is a lot for christians, but its nothing compared to what muslims do.  Remember, most of the victims of muslim aggression and violence are arabs and muslims.  What we see in on the news when they attack the west is just the tip of the ice berg.

---

Lol.

In the east they call the west terrorists, in the west they call muslims terrorists.

The **** are you talking about man!?


I think you're better off in the forums for politics, east and west, right and left.


ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE THE VIEW FROM YOUR SIDE AND ONLY YOUR SIDE. OPEN EYES?

Quote:

---

The **** are you talking about man!?

---

Quote:

---

In the end, i think  christians, catholics and muslims (religions) have equally shared blood on their hands throughout history.

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

In the end, i think  christians, catholics and muslims (religions) have equally shared blood on their hands throughout history.

---

We are not talking about history, we are talking about today.  If you have to go back hundreds of years to show a similar amount of blood on the hands then I think you have proven my point.

---

Quote:

---

Dont you too think this sounds realistic, maybe not the numbers but how (in the end) there are pretty much equally killed by the end of this week?

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

Dont you too think this sounds realistic, maybe not the numbers but how (in the end) there are pretty much equally killed by the end of this week?

---

No, not at all.  You are doing what you accuse me of - only paying attention to CNN and the like.

Nearly every conflict in the world involves Muslims.  Most of these conflicts dont involve the US, so you dont hear about them as much.  Sudan, Somalia, Israel, Sir Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, Philippines - all over the old world, where ever muslims have non-muslim neighbors there is violence.  And all of this doesn't even begin to address the biggest vicims of muslim violence - fellow muslims.

Yea, in the past Christains were blood thirsty killers and Muslims were liberal and enlightened thinkers.  If I lived 1000 years ago you can be damn sure I would rather live in the Muslim world.  But its not that way any more.  These days the Muslim world is the most aggressive, blood thirsty and dangerous geopolitical entity facing our culture and way of life.

---

I watch al jazeera, i watch CNN, i watch Russia Today, i watch this - i watch that (i even watch asian "muslim world" news from time to time while visiting my friend who translates). Nothing gives me as much information as friends i have from various parts of the world AND obviously the places i have seen with my own eyes. Stil, i draw my own conclusions from all of these "sources". Now lets see, i have media (both eastern and western media), friends and my own eyes. What sources do you have? You ever been to a muslim country?

"christian world" and wars, USA (how many wars in the last 10-20 years? 7 or 8? ), how many wars in African "christian" countries? During the last 30 years i believe you will find pretty much the same number of wars...

I do not deny that "christian world" is ahead on most areas, and its definitely a part of the world with better living standard overall (today). Im also proud of being a westerner when i look at the good parts of our society. Dont get me wrong, im not pro-"muslim world" however, im not pro-"christian world" either as i see faults and killings both here and there. Theres little to no difference, same shit, different wrapping.


I also think this debate is heading more and more towards politics and not philosophy.

Quote:

---

johnm214 said:

Quote:

---

sk8ordude said:
I blame propaganda and peoples lazy thinking habits.

---

I blame you- personally.

---