What is a cause of Islamic terrorism?

[Sy Borg]

Freedom fighter and Terrorists do NOT equate, all though can sometimes be miss labeled. One example is the Vietnam war, it would be quite logical to see the United States as the terrorists.

Yeah, they equate. The US in Vietnam were not terrorists but an invasive force.

No, they don't, at least not always, the American holocaust in southeast Asia was definitely a terrorist campaign on the part of the United States. Splitting hairs here, it was an invasion force that practiced terrorism.

I would agree that it was an invasion force that practiced terrorism. But, usually, when we refer to terrorists those people tend to see themselves as freedom fighters, including the Capitol invaders.

[LuckyR]

Freedom fighter and Terrorists do NOT equate, all though can sometimes be miss labeled. One example is the Vietnam war, it would be quite logical to see the United States as the terrorists. It is quite another thing for Muslims to kill other peoples because they view all non-Muslims a fair game for slaughter. These are not freedom fighters but religious crazies, they are going by a literal interpretation of the KORAN, something the other desert religions learned to bypass long-ago. Another thing significant is the Muslims never had a period of Enlightenment like that which liberated Europeans from the grip of superstition and religion to a significant degree.

Uummm... yeah they kind of do. The US in Vietnam couldn't be terrorists, since we sent in regular troops in a "stand up fight" strategy. Terrorists don't wear uniforms, aren't recognized as regular troops and typically use unconventional weapons and tactics. Freedom fighters commonly share these same markers. Significant portions of the Continental US army fought as Freedom Fighters (from the US perspective) but could easily fit the definition of terrorists from the British perspective.

[popeye1945]

The fact that catagorically the United States is an empire, and fights a war it created in a standard form due to its power, does not make it none terrorism. The United State is well practiced in terrorism, even if they do contract it out much of the time. Much of the world knows the intimidation of the monster superpower of American. American has no moral high ground, to much of the world it has no moral ground at all. To quote, the older Bush president," The world is just going to have to get use to it, what we say goes!"

[LuckyR]

The fact that catagorically the United States is an empire, and fights a war it created in a standard form due to its power, does not make it none terrorism. The United State is well practiced in terrorism, even if they do contract it out much of the time. Much of the world knows the intimidation of the monster superpower of American. American has no moral high ground, to much of the world it has no moral ground at all. To quote, the older Bush president," The world is just going to have to get use to it, what we say goes!"

True, anyone can choose to practice terroristic tactics, just as anyone can choose to practice conventional warfare. But how much use of terroristic tactics makes one a "terrorist"? 1%? 51%? Many, if not most would say the latter. If it is the former just about every fighting force would qualify thus diluting the description towards meaninglessness.

[popeye1945]

America qualifies for the latter, for when they are not enacting a war, they are intimidating. At present they are intimidating China and in the process of defining her as their new enemy. Presently they have the country surrounded with military bases and missiles. America has a historical practice of accussing its choosen enemies of doing what in fact they are doing. They tend to define other countries enacting policies to improves the lives of their citizens, at a cost to American corporations as a communist, dangerous, and definately entities to be dealt harshly with. War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

[Sy Borg]

America ... War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

Not just the US. GW Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard should have all been tried and convicted of war crimes for the Iraq invasion. If justice was done, all three would be in prison.

Ultimately, terrorism is attacking your enemy's civilians rather than their combatants. However, the line is blurred when combatants embed in civilian communities, using them as shields (if they are not bombed) or for propaganda leverage (if the bombings happen anyway).

[LuckyR]

America qualifies for the latter, for when they are not enacting a war, they are intimidating. At present they are intimidating China and in the process of defining her as their new enemy. Presently they have the country surrounded with military bases and missiles. America has a historical practice of accussing its choosen enemies of doing what in fact they are doing. They tend to define other countries enacting policies to improves the lives of their citizens, at a cost to American corporations as a communist, dangerous, and definately entities to be dealt harshly with. War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

You're kind of all over the place. Using propaganda, is not terrorism. Surrounding one's enemies is not terrorism. War crimes are not terrorism.

[LuckyR]

America ... War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

Not just the US. GW Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard should have all been tried and convicted of war crimes for the Iraq invasion. If justice was done, all three would be in prison.

Ultimately, terrorism is attacking your enemy's civilians rather than their combatants. However, the line is blurred when combatants embed in civilian communities, using them as shields (if they are not bombed) or for propaganda leverage (if the bombings happen anyway).

Well the IRA tried very hard to kill British soldiers, ultimately killing twice as many soldiers than civilians. Most agree they were a terrorist organization or freedom fighters.

[popeye1945]

America qualifies for the latter, for when they are not enacting a war, they are intimidating. At present they are intimidating China and in the process of defining her as their new enemy. Presently they have the country surrounded with military bases and missiles. America has a historical practice of accussing its choosen enemies of doing what in fact they are doing. They tend to define other countries enacting policies to improves the lives of their citizens, at a cost to American corporations as a communist, dangerous, and definately entities to be dealt harshly with. War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

You're kind of all over the place. Using propaganda, is not terrorism. Surrounding one's enemies is not terrorism. War crimes are not terrorism.

You must be a Yank, what do you think those 800 or more military bases around the world are about. As I have quoted before from the old president Bush. "The world is just going to have to get used to the idea, what we say goes." What do you think a full-time war economy is about, it necessitates one does not run out of enemies. How about contracting out death squads in order to protect American corporation's profits in South American, not terrorism? The world is frightened by the monster superpower of the United States, and Trumpism frightens everyone, power and stupidity is terrorizing.

Whoever the Yanks surround is their enemies. and they surround the globe, that ain't apple pie. War crimes are not terrorism, really, then what was Nurengberg about. The world is not that nieve about the American Empire. Semantics and double talk don't change things, like the holocaust of Vietnam in southeast Asia.

[LuckyR]

America qualifies for the latter, for when they are not enacting a war, they are intimidating. At present they are intimidating China and in the process of defining her as their new enemy. Presently they have the country surrounded with military bases and missiles. America has a historical practice of accussing its choosen enemies of doing what in fact they are doing. They tend to define other countries enacting policies to improves the lives of their citizens, at a cost to American corporations as a communist, dangerous, and definately entities to be dealt harshly with. War crimes they have committed go untried, for who is going to bring them to a Nuremberg type account of the behaviors.

You're kind of all over the place. Using propaganda, is not terrorism. Surrounding one's enemies is not terrorism. War crimes are not terrorism.

You must be a Yank, what do you think those 800 or more military bases around the world are about. As I have quoted before from the old president Bush. "The world is just going to have to get used to the idea, what we say goes." What do you think a full-time war economy is about, it necessitates one does not run out of enemies. How about contracting out death squads in order to protect American corporation's profits in South American, not terrorism? The world is frightened by the monster superpower of the United States, and Trumpism frightens everyone, power and stupidity is terrorizing.

Whoever the Yanks surround is their enemies. and they surround the globe, that ain't apple pie. War crimes are not terrorism, really, then what was Nurengberg about. The world is not that nieve about the American Empire. Semantics and double talk don't change things, like the holocaust of Vietnam in southeast Asia.

Ok, you're clearly using the terrorism label for international extortion. Go for it. I'm discussing a different issue.

[popeye1945]

Lucky, I talking about killing innocent people, that's not terrorism? So, what are you then talking about?

[Sy Borg]

Popeye, from what I've read, many US terrorist acts during war were perpetrated by war-damaged soldiers under a weak/rogue/damaged CO. Also, innocents can end up as targets when harbouring enemy combatants, (even if against their will). Embedding and endangering civilians is wildly unethical, of course, and definitely plays a role in propaganda wars, but I expect they would otherwise be easy targets for the invading force.

[LuckyR]

Lucky, I talking about killing innocent people, that's not terrorism? So, what are you then talking about?

I am discussing the tactics used by terrorists groups (by necessity) when in conflict with large, well funded entities. In contrast to guerilla tactics used by smaller nations against larger ones as well as traditional warfare between equally sized and equipped armies.

The bombing of Dresden and the Battle of Britain involved killing civilians as the intended targets, but both were carried out by large national air forces. I agree they were terrorism, just not carried out by terrorists. Both contributed next to nothing in the greater war effort and no discernable advantage was gained by either. Thus they were anomalies, representing a tiny fraction of battles waged in the conflict and IMO do not justify relabeling the combatants.

Sounds like you disagree, target civilians, you're a terrorist. That's fine.

[popeye1945]

Lucky. I do agree with what you have stated above, but, categories sometimes don't allow for the big picture. What America has done in South America though contracted out, is terrorism. In San Salvador apparently, the people use to refer to the death squads as, Reagan's death squads. I try myself when I can remember, to force myself to look outside the catagory. You make some fine distinctions, most people don't think of America as terrorists, but many peoples in other parts of the world, know differently.

[LuckyR]

Lucky. I do agree with what you have stated above, but, categories sometimes don't allow for the big picture. What America has done in South America though contracted out, is terrorism. In San Salvador apparently, the people use to refer to the death squads as, Reagan's death squads. I try myself when I can remember, to force myself to look outside the catagory. You make some fine distinctions, most people don't think of America as terrorists, but many peoples in other parts of the world, know differently.

Well after thinking about your post, it struck me that just as the US Army shouldn't and generally doesn't use terrorist tactics (and thus aren't terrorists) that the CIA has many similarities to terrorists, they don't wear uniforms, they don't have regular soldiers, they can't prevail in a stand up fight (cue the Bay of Pigs), so they use irregular tactics and unconventional arms. So I guess we're both right.