Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sharp1183
I understand what you're trying to say, but I what I meant by "modern terrorism" was "modern radical islamic terrorism"--suicide bomings, car/bus/building bombings, against the US and our interests ect. That's what I want to go away, and I hope it will some day.
I think what you and squawks are saying is there will always be broad forms of terrorism, which is true, and a lot of "bad acts" can be considered terrorism.
But don't mind me, because I'm really confused about the world today anyway. I was always pretty good with history and remembering dates, etc., but that's not saying too much because I don't even understand current events anymore...how will I be able to explain what's going on now to anyone years from now?
I can see all the news reports and listen to all the speeches and watch all the documentaries, and yet I still don't understand all the fighting.
When someone attacked the US, like on 911, I didn't know who they were or why they did it. I didn't know what they're trying to achieve, and 5 years later, I still don't.
People have offered many explanations and I've listened, but I think like many people, I still don't really understand.
|
The attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon and the Capitol Building (object of Flight 93 I believe) were Al-Qaeda initiated, and part of Jihad against the "Judeo-Christian World". This was fairly clear from Osama himself. At the least, the desire of these extremists is to eliminate Israel and incapacitate all of its allies/supporters. I agree that terrorism has been around for a long time. Part of what makes people argue about this point has to do with the definition of terrorism. Personally, when I mean terrorism, I am referring to attacks purposely directed against civilians, delivered in such a way as to strike fear into the hearts of the general population. That doesn't mean that non-terrorist (by the preceding definition) acts are justified or appropriate, but that they simply are not terroristic in nature.
In a similar fashion, not all activites by traditionally terrorist groups are "terrorist". For example, I consider the attack on the USS Cole to be a military activity, not terrorism, as it was against a military target. Had the attack on the Pentagon not involved a commercial airliner, I would consider this a military activity (albeit act of war), not terrorism per se. What upsets me the most is when the attacks are targeting civilians only. I consider this cowardice, and I do differentiate between civilians injured in collateral damage from those injured as primary targets. By this definition, I do not consider internment of Japanese Americans, reprehensible as it was to be terrorism. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo during WWII might be more likely to be considered terrorism, though I do not know enough about the targets to be able to comment.
It's not all about being upset as Caucasians (I am not a Caucasian, BTW) or even conservatives. Terrorism which disgusts me includes bombings in bus stations in Northern Ireland, the Oklahoma City bombing, and even actions as far back as actions taken against civilians in China during the Boxer Rebellion.
Sadly, I think the question is not "why" we have violence or terrorism, but how have we gone so long without being major targets. As long as we support Israel's position, we will be Al Qaeda targets, for example, but that's not the only thing that we do that pisses off extremists (it doesn't take much, though).