6 ms·

> they would like to change society to suit their ends. What would be those means employed by non-Muslim radicals to effect social change? I'm inclined to sa

> they would like to change society to suit their ends. What would be those means employed by non-Muslim radicals to effect social change? I'm inclined to say that urban warfare and terrorizing an entire population with open aggression tactics are not among them.

claudius 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect such change in Western countries. That they have not succeeded in building a near-nation state out of that terrorism is largely due to the higher stability of “Western” countries compared to the middle east, though, depending on whom you ask, they were quite successful in Ukraine.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries). I see this line of argumentation regularly, but since those movements were brought down with significant police and military operations, I don't see them as good examples for why Muslim extremism should not be brought down by police and military operations. There are other reasons, but this comparison doesn't qualify.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    > You really have to go back in time to find these examples I remember the centre of my local town being blown to shit when I was a teenager. 1996 is not that long ago. You really shouldn't discard it as 'the past'. What's funny is, large segments in the US actively supported these terrorists. All their rhetoric and they're just as guilty.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Yes, 1996 is not that long ago, but the overall picture is that many brands of terrorism have declined drastically after 1991, the fall of Soviet Union. There's much less logistical support for various left-wing movements. After 2001, American authorities no longer approved of funding and supporting IRA operations in Britain so any hopes of "military" achievements by Irish nationalists dwindled. Also support for ETA and similar movements in Europe have declined. RAF (Red Army Fraction) and various Arab groups used to work together; that seems nowadays negligible. But jihadist violence has increased its profile.
  - rmc 11y ago
    The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations. Various leaders of it are currentling serving in governments in Northern Ireland. (Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams is a TD in Ireland)
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      > The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations. Yes, but I would say that the hope of any "military" achievements by IRA (in the sense of aggravating so much violence as to make UK give away North Ireland) was lost as funding and arms dealing was more difficult and surveillance more effective. So it was good sense to stick to the Good Friday agreement.
  - pgeorgi 11y ago
    "the 1980s" (picking 1986 since it's the mid-decade) are about as close in time to 9/11 (2001) than 9/11 is to us. Next year that's equidistant. At which point does 9/11 not matter anymore?
- gotchange 11y ago
  The problem with terrorist attacks conducted by Islamist radicals compared to their non Islamist counterparts is the scope of those attacks as they transcend national borders and are not confined to a certain region or location, it's more of a global worldwide theater of operations for them unlike the usual terrorist organizations in Europe or the US. Also, I have reservations including nationalist movements and lone-wolf ops in your rebuttal as the underlying nature of the struggle is completely different than that of the Islamic terrorism. You could reason with a radical nationalist and persuade them to explore other options than an armed struggle to reach political goals but good luck trying that with a faith-driven, theology-loving radical who thinks he's on some divine (read: apocalyptic) mission to cleanse the masses of their imaginary sins.
rtpg 11y ago
Wasn't there that guy in Santa Barbara who shot a bunch of women because he hated them? The Waco seige? No one has a monopoly on violence for attempting social change Though here that's beside the point. The Paris attacks were not because France is a free country, but because France was bombing Daesh. This is more like the Lockerbie bombing than like some sort of "clash of civilizations" that so many are implying
- copperred 11y ago
  "The Paris attacks were...because France was bombing Daesh." What a disgusting rationalization of the indiscriminate killing of innocent people. "An online statement said eight militants armed with explosive belts and automatic weapons attacked carefully chosen targets in the "capital of adultery and vice," including a soccer stadium where France was playing Germany, and the Bataclan concert hall, where an American rock band was playing, and "hundreds of apostates were attending an adulterous party."" Oops, they were actually "carefully chosen targets". That's better. [1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-top-hit-list-capital-adultery-and-vice http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-to...
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Sorry, I don't mean to rationalise the killings of innocents. Of course it's disgusting. But the whole "Free country" rhetoric is just as much of a lie here as it was with 9/11. The fact that both Russia and France were recent targets of terrorism is no coincidence.
- gotchange 11y ago
  I hate the clash of civilizations narrative and identity politics as much as the next guy but Paris wasn't attacked because France attacked ISIS first. On the contrary and let me refresh your memory, ISIS attacked first and murdered all those hostages held in captivity in Syria or Iraq mercilessly. Even if they hadn't killed western hostages, they'd still have to be taken down as they pose a threat and constitute a major destabilizing force in the region and the world as a whole.
Natanael_L 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

claudius 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect such change in Western countries. That they have not succeeded in building a near-nation state out of that terrorism is largely due to the higher stability of “Western” countries compared to the middle east, though, depending on whom you ask, they were quite successful in Ukraine.

ptaipale 11y ago
You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries). I see this line of argumentation regularly, but since those movements were brought down with significant police and military operations, I don't see them as good examples for why Muslim extremism should not be brought down by police and military operations. There are other reasons, but this comparison doesn't qualify.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  > You really have to go back in time to find these examples I remember the centre of my local town being blown to shit when I was a teenager. 1996 is not that long ago. You really shouldn't discard it as 'the past'. What's funny is, large segments in the US actively supported these terrorists. All their rhetoric and they're just as guilty.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Yes, 1996 is not that long ago, but the overall picture is that many brands of terrorism have declined drastically after 1991, the fall of Soviet Union. There's much less logistical support for various left-wing movements. After 2001, American authorities no longer approved of funding and supporting IRA operations in Britain so any hopes of "military" achievements by Irish nationalists dwindled. Also support for ETA and similar movements in Europe have declined. RAF (Red Army Fraction) and various Arab groups used to work together; that seems nowadays negligible. But jihadist violence has increased its profile.
- rmc 11y ago
  The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations. Various leaders of it are currentling serving in governments in Northern Ireland. (Martin McGuinness is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams is a TD in Ireland)
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    > The IRA was not bought down by miltiary operations. Yes, but I would say that the hope of any "military" achievements by IRA (in the sense of aggravating so much violence as to make UK give away North Ireland) was lost as funding and arms dealing was more difficult and surveillance more effective. So it was good sense to stick to the Good Friday agreement.
- pgeorgi 11y ago
  "the 1980s" (picking 1986 since it's the mid-decade) are about as close in time to 9/11 (2001) than 9/11 is to us. Next year that's equidistant. At which point does 9/11 not matter anymore?
gotchange 11y ago
The problem with terrorist attacks conducted by Islamist radicals compared to their non Islamist counterparts is the scope of those attacks as they transcend national borders and are not confined to a certain region or location, it's more of a global worldwide theater of operations for them unlike the usual terrorist organizations in Europe or the US. Also, I have reservations including nationalist movements and lone-wolf ops in your rebuttal as the underlying nature of the struggle is completely different than that of the Islamic terrorism. You could reason with a radical nationalist and persuade them to explore other options than an armed struggle to reach political goals but good luck trying that with a faith-driven, theology-loving radical who thinks he's on some divine (read: apocalyptic) mission to cleanse the masses of their imaginary sins.

rtpg 11y ago

Wasn't there that guy in Santa Barbara who shot a bunch of women because he hated them? The Waco seige? No one has a monopoly on violence for attempting social change Though here that's beside the point. The Paris attacks were not because France is a free country, but because France was bombing Daesh. This is more like the Lockerbie bombing than like some sort of "clash of civilizations" that so many are implying

copperred 11y ago
"The Paris attacks were...because France was bombing Daesh." What a disgusting rationalization of the indiscriminate killing of innocent people. "An online statement said eight militants armed with explosive belts and automatic weapons attacked carefully chosen targets in the "capital of adultery and vice," including a soccer stadium where France was playing Germany, and the Bataclan concert hall, where an American rock band was playing, and "hundreds of apostates were attending an adulterous party."" Oops, they were actually "carefully chosen targets". That's better. [1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-top-hit-list-capital-adultery-and-vice http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-to...
- rtpg 11y ago
  Sorry, I don't mean to rationalise the killings of innocents. Of course it's disgusting. But the whole "Free country" rhetoric is just as much of a lie here as it was with 9/11. The fact that both Russia and France were recent targets of terrorism is no coincidence.
gotchange 11y ago
I hate the clash of civilizations narrative and identity politics as much as the next guy but Paris wasn't attacked because France attacked ISIS first. On the contrary and let me refresh your memory, ISIS attacked first and murdered all those hostages held in captivity in Syria or Iraq mercilessly. Even if they hadn't killed western hostages, they'd still have to be taken down as they pose a threat and constitute a major destabilizing force in the region and the world as a whole.

Natanael_L 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik