Terrorists?
 

Why do people restrict the definition of a terrorist to islamic extremists who blow themselves up in order to cause pain and suffering to others?

Everytime the Terrorist Act 2005 comes up in conversation thats what people seem to automatically think of, and completely forget or ignore the fact that ordinary protesters can be held under this act, as well as members of organisations such as PETA being tried under it.

Why are people so small minded about the definition of a terrorist? It really annoys me that Islam is the primary association with the word terrorist, and I dont really think its fair at all :mad:

Re: Terrorists?
 

I wonder if it could possibly be because of the reasons the Terrorist Act of 2005 was brought in?

Re: Terrorists?
 

are you that young you dont remember the damage the IRA caused?

they were and still are classed as terroists but lets face it when ever a terrorist act is carried out such as a bombing or hijacking it is usualy some twit with his twisted version of the muslim faith thats at the core of it

i havnt heard of any jewish , christian or mormon factions slaming airoplanes into building lately

if the majority of terrorist acts are commited by muslims then the muslims are going to be the first thing people think of when the word terrorist is mentioned , its not right its just unfortunate fro the good muslim people but then again i dont walk around thinking every muslim is a terrorist either

dont get me wrong , animal rights and anti abortion extreemists are pure scum as well and are no better than binladen himself in my eyes because they force their beliefs on others with intimidation and in some cases murder

Re: Terrorists?
 

Maybe it's just because I study it so I am all too aware of the different types of people tried under that Act. Just strikes me as odd that people are all FOR the terrorist act when it is capable in my views of breaching some of our fundamental rights, and generally the view is that its muslim extremists that are the targeted people of this act :p I always thought it had a bit of censorship quality about it to be truthful.

I personally can't bring myself to associate islam with terrorists, even if there are a few who have flown into buildings or blown themselves up or whatever. Just seems a bit naive to me.

edit: I probably am definitely too young to remember what the IRA did. Nothing really comes to mind anyway.

Re: Terrorists?
 

the IRA did more damage in the UK than what any other terrorist organisation has managed to do so far

i also agree that the terrorism laws have taken away a lot of our right from under our noses but im not sure which ones

i know we can no longer protest in large numbers and freedom of speech has long gone out the window and also that even i the model citizen that i am can be dragged out of bed and held without charge with no real reason apart from it been under the prevention or terrorism act

am i close ?

Re: Terrorists?
 

What do you mean did? Don't you mean are doing?

Re: Terrorists?
 

Well it is true to say not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim in todays world

Re: Terrorists?
 

In "today's world" the most recent terrorist attack was a car bomb on Sunday night in Bilbao which was planted by the Basque separatist group ETA, who have killed more than 820 people in their 40 year campaign of bombings and shootings in a bid to to carve a Basque homeland out of northern Spain and southwestern France.

Re: Terrorists?
 

Re: Terrorists?
 

Yes, but the biggest threat to the west is not ETA, but Al-quaea. A month or so ago, a large cell was rolled up here in Morocco, about 20, some of them right at the top my street.

Re: Terrorists?
 

This shibboleth gets trotted out far too often. In the case of the Islamists - they are not fighting to bring freedom to anyone but to impose their own dark vision upon as many people as possible.

Re: Terrorists?
 

yup if they had their way our women would be behind veils , homosexuals would be stoned to death , beer would be a big no no and god knows what else the list goes on and on

yet people still try to reason with them :rolleyes:

Re: Terrorists?
 

How can members of PETA be classed as terrorists? :confused:

Re: Terrorists?
 

Not all of them are 'terrorists' of course, but members have commited acts of terrorism against researchers who test products on animals. Not so long ago there was an issue with sending letter bombs and labs being targeted. It must have been around 2 yrs ago because I'm sure I read about it whilst I was at college and brought it up in sociology.

The Terrorism Act is very broad in regards to acts of terrorism. All sorts of people can be arrested and tried in court under it. Hence why protesters complain about it so much. They claim is breaches some fundamental human rights.

Re: Terrorists?
 

i once watched a bbc documentary where a reporter infiltrated an extreem animal rights cell and it not only turned out that they were been funded in part by money collected in the street by those stalls that set up every now and then with pictures of animals in laborotories etc but surprisingly most of all a proportion of money was been donated to the extreem activists from the big issue which is supposed to help homeless people but at the time donated some of its funds to animal rights groups, the reporter was recruited at a meeting where the scum hide amongst the people who think they are doing the right thing but it didnt take him long to ask the right questions and get recruited into the cell where he recorded conversations of plans to blow up a laborotory and bomb a doctors home with intent to kill his family just because he performed abortions

since the report was aired some years ago now i have no idea if ths is still the case or not regarding the big issue or if they actualy knew what there money was been used for but needless to say i dont donate to anything like that anymore

i think it was panorama that infiltrated them

personaly if i wa sinclined to donate to an animal cause it woudl be the r.s.p.c.a as i have never heard of them bombing vets or laborotories

Re: Terrorists?
 

This cliché (not shibboleth) is trotted out often because it is perfectly true.

What would call the Tamil Tigers? If you were a Sri Lankan you would call them terrorists but if you were a Tamil you would call them freedom fighters. They are not trying to impose their way on the whole country or a foreign country, they just want a corner to themselves. The same goes for the Basque people and the Kurds.

During WWII the French resistance was, according to the Nazis, a terrorist group but to the Allies they were freedom fighters.

The Al-Qaeda is different in that its war is waged all over the world and that makes them out and out terrorists.

Re: Terrorists?
 

Jambutty is right,
That and the fact that Al-Qaeda want the world to live by the ultra stict Islamic sect of Wahabiism, as in Saudi Arabia.
Now you could argue thats wnat happend in the crusades, ut that was a long long time ago. Although various religions try to convert us all, Mormons, Witnesses etc. I don't see many Catholics on sucicide missions. Wahabiism is a very strict religion, women really are down trodden there, no driving, no going out in public without being covered head to toe.

Re: Terrorists?
 

Whatever the reason, if a group of freedom fighters are killing and injuring innocent people, in pursuit of a political agenda, they are all terrorists.

Re: Terrorists?
 

Re: Terrorists?
 

My word works just as well.....one meaning being a slogan. And what is a slogan if not a brief attention-getting phrase? Fits the bill.

I made a point of separating the Islamists, (Al-Qaeda being but one branch of the same tree), from the other groups you have mentioned above. All use or have used terrorist tactics but not to the same aim as the radical Muslims.