Sunday, April 6, 2008

Terrorism: Not a Muslim Monopoly

Update (September 28, 2009)
I recently discovered that I'm related to a terrorist. Of the non-Ay-rab variety. That might explain the special treatment I received, flying, several years ago.

The point I've tried to make - often - is that Not All [fill in a group you don't like] are terrorists. A terrorist in the family tree doesn't mean that all my relations are terrorists: any more than we're all writers, like me.

Yes, it's a little more difficult to understand the world, after you realize that all members of the groups you've recognized aren't essentially identical. But that's the way it is.
Some Muslims seem determined to prove that Islam is a violent religion:
  • "U.S. Embassy in Yemen urges caution after rocket attack"
    CNN (April 6, 2008)
    "A housing complex used by foreigners in Yemen's capital came under attack late Sunday, with explosives shattering windows but causing no injuries, U.S. and Yemeni officials said."
  • "Al Qaeda No. 2: We don't kill innocents"
    CNN (April 3, 2008)
    "... innocents who have been killed in attacks by al Qaeda or affiliated groups died as a result of 'unintentional error' or because they were used as 'human shields' by 'the enemy.' ...
    "Al-Zawahiri defended a December attack in Algeria -- hospital sources said it killed 60 people -- because one of its targets was a United Nations building and the 'United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims,' ...."
    (Smart move: claiming that the coalition uses "human shields." That may make it more difficult to make that claim about Palestinian activists whose rocket launchers just happen to be on someone's roof.)
And, some have been not-so-violent: A few flags burned, and an embassy gate torn off, is practically non-violent, compared to what happened to Theo van Gogh.

Despite the remarkably mild response to "Fitna," it's easy to assume that Islam = terrorism = Islam.

Easy, but wrong. Ireland's IRA is, thankfully, off the radar as far as bombing and mayhem are concerned, but other groups have picked up the torch of killing for the cause. For example: "Suicide blast kills Sri Lankan minister" (CNN (April 2008)). Over a dozen people died in a 'suicide bombing' in Sri Lanka. Looks like the Tamil Tigers are still at it. They're a group with some ethnic/political goals: and they seem to believe that what they want is worth killing what they probably consider foreigners to get them.

I've posted about the Sri Lanka brand of terrorism before: "The War on Terror: It's Not All Uneducated Muslims and Attacks on America" (February 23, 2008); "Let's Remember: Not All Terrorists are Muslims" (February 3, 2008); "Tamil Terror? Bomb Blows up Bus in Sri Lanka" (February 3, 2008); "" (January 16, 2008);


Unknown said...

So what do you have against the Irish republicans particularly? I would have thought you'd understand their situation. What's the difference between Tom Paine and James Connolly or George Washington and Michael Collins?

Brian H. Gill said...

I understand the situation of Ireland all too well. My opinion of Henry VIII of England is quite a bit lower than it might be, as a result in his regrettable policies, and what has followed.

That does not mean I condone the actions of the IRA, or the Tamil Tigers, or any other group which resorts to terroristic acts as its primary means of expression.

The difference between the IRA and the American Revolution? About two centuries, and a matter of tactics. The IRA acted as a militia of nationalists, attacking civilian targets.

If the American Revolution had been run the same way, Tom Paine and George Washington would have been blowing up printing presses and ale houses in England.

Sorry, moral relativism won't fly here.

Unknown said...

Hmmm, your attitude from the BC thread about the nuclear attack on Japan has changed quite considerably. Interesting.

I'm quite aware of the horrible actions of the pub bombers. It's inexcusable but understandable. However, we're talking about a situation of war where terrible things happen. Hopefully the perpetrators will be held responsible. But you act as if Irish republicans are monolithic. I certainly identify more with INLA than the provos or official IRA.

And I see you don't mention the UVF death-squads or SAS/Army random killings and torture-squads. No mention of random sectarian killings by the RUC, and no mention of the prejudice of the Protestants. Funny that.

Brian H. Gill said...

Daniel Owen,

I do not have enough information to evaluate the assertion that my "attitude from the BC thread about the nuclear attack on Japan has changed quite considerably."

I will agree that my not mentioning the prejudice of the Protestants is remarkable: particularly since I am Catholic.

As for the rest, I must make an attempt to maintain the focus of this blog. Therefore, I must say: "This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."

Unknown said...

Ok, I can live with that!

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.