The meaning of "atheism" and "terrorism"

[Revoltingest]

You obviously did not read post #10 and although taking the low road and going for the wiki attack to try and undermine my statement is an interesting one it is not true. I used Wiki to give a list of terrorist organizations to help clarify that there are domestic terrorist organizations as well as international

I go with definitions used my governments, law enforcement organizations, intelligence organizations and military and there is no use of the word "religion" in any of the definitions. Have a college cert in terrorism guys and an IT security job that requires me to keep up on some of it so if you want to spar this one out I am more than qualified to do so... your insistence to include religion in an accepted definition of any authority on the subject is just plain wrong.

I knew you were in security, but I thought it was as a threat...especially to tasty hikers.

 

[jeager106]

Sure .. in the same way that Islamic Extremists are Muslim. There are always "bad eggs" in every group. Defining the entirety of the group by their actions and beliefs, however, is extremely prejudiced. I would say that all Agnostics are Atheists. But, all Atheists are not necessarily Agnostic, as a strong Atheist would not question, but would have an active non-belief in God. Agnostics just don't know, but, by definition, they lack the belief and, thus, must be considered Atheists as well.

Bad eggs in every group. Indeed that is the human part of groups.
There will be those who violate laws, customs, traditions, for a variety of reasons.
In this time of the history of mankind there seems to be a lot of bad eggs committing acts of terrorism.
I googled "athiest" acts of terrorism and find zero credible accounts of such actions my athiests.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is how Saudi Arabia defines terrorism: Atheism.

Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents - Middle East - World - The Independent

Article one of the new provisions defines terrorism as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based".

Explains a lot about the other thread... doesn't it.

 

[Wu Wei]

I mean, I think my definition was far too simplistic. But, I am not speaking towards legal definitions, but, rather, the commonly accepted definition among English speaking countries (as we are looking into the English term). And, while I should be more specific, there is a commonly accepted definition for the term as it is used in common language. It refers to acts or threats of violence toward non-combatants to further political or social goals (obviously, religious beliefs would be included in these). Would you disagree with this definition of the term? My point was that NoX claimed that any murder would qualify as terrorism, but she was confusing the word "terror", which all murder seems to be, and "terrorism" which, at the very least, can be agreed to be a far different classification.

I would disagree with anything that threw religion into the mix, because it can and does cause a lot of problems from intolerance to misidentification, both very dangerous in my opinion.

But you are correct, by definition murder is not terrorism although terrorist commit murder. Murder and Terrorism are not the same thing

 

[leibowde84]

I would disagree with anything that threw religion into the mix, because it can and does cause a lot of problems from intolerance to misidentification, both very dangerous in my opinion.

But you are correct, by definition murder is not terrorism although terrorist commit murder. Murder and Terrorism are not the same thing

I'm not too concerned with any kind of risks. I think there is no way around calling anyone who becomes violent because of religious beliefs "terrorists." I think that might be the most illegitimate rationals for hurting anyone. I would argue that murder during a burglary is even much more justified than killing because of subjective beliefs.

 

[Wu Wei]

I'm not too concerned with any kind of risks. I think there is no way around calling anyone who becomes violent because of religious beliefs "terrorists." I think that might be the most illegitimate rationals for hurting anyone. I would argue that murder during a burglary is even much more justified than killing because of subjective beliefs.

Then the Crusades were acts of terrorism and the Pope and that catholic church were terrorists and what Stalin did during and after WW II might not be terrorism because there was no religious affiliation. And the Jewish people became terrorists in the time of Moses because they were attacking, killing and defending because if religious beliefs. And any oppressed people who are oppressed because of their religion, who fight back are then terrorists too.

The danger comes in the form of religious intolerance thereby labeling everyone of the regions a terrorist comes form as a terrorist, when they are not or worse yet labeling everyone that looks like a person from said religion as a terrorist... I was engaged to a woman who ran and hid when she saw or worse yet, in cases of domestic terrorism where there is no obvious religious affiliation, not calling it terrorism due to the lack of the religious bit. But there can be a religious bit in domestic terrorism but the religion of choice there is christianity.

 

[leibowde84]

Then the Crusades were acts of terrorism and the Pope and that catholic church were terrorists and what Stalin did during and after WW II might not be terrorism because there was no religious affiliation. And the Jewish people became terrorists in the time of Moses because they were attacking, killing and defending because if religious beliefs. And any oppressed people who are oppressed because of their religion, who fight back are then terrorists too.

The danger comes in the form of religious intolerance thereby labeling everyone of the regions a terrorist comes form as a terrorist, when they are not or worse yet labeling everyone that looks like a person from said religion as a terrorist... I was engaged to a woman who ran and hid when she saw or worse yet, in cases of domestic terrorism where there is no obvious religious affiliation, not calling it terrorism due to the lack of the religious bit. But there can be a religious bit in domestic terrorism but the religion of choice there is christianity.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that religious beliefs were a requisite. Merely that they should be included in the definition along with social and political goals. That's it. And, I would agree that the crusaders were terrorists, as was Stalin's regime, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Then the Crusades were acts of terrorism and the Pope and that catholic church were terrorists and what Stalin did during and after WW II might not be terrorism because there was no religious affiliation. And the Jewish people became terrorists in the time of Moses because they were attacking, killing and defending because if religious beliefs. And any oppressed people who are oppressed because of their religion, who fight back are then terrorists too.

The danger comes in the form of religious intolerance thereby labeling everyone of the regions a terrorist comes form as a terrorist, when they are not or worse yet labeling everyone that looks like a person from said religion as a terrorist... I was engaged to a woman who ran and hid when she saw or worse yet, in cases of domestic terrorism where there is no obvious religious affiliation, not calling it terrorism due to the lack of the religious bit. But there can be a religious bit in domestic terrorism but the religion of choice there is christianity.

Further, you made a pretty big leap in logic there. Obviously those who are protecting their own well-being which is being threatened by another group, they have every right to defend themselves. That is why I feel that attacking "non-combatants" should be part of the definition as well.

 

[Wu Wei]

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that religious beliefs were a requisite. Merely that they should be included in the definition along with social and political goals. That's it. And, I would agree that the crusaders were terrorists, as was Stalin's regime, etc.

I never meant to imply you did say that, what I am saying, include religion in the definition things get sketchy, which is why it is not part of the definition

Further, you made a pretty big leap in logic there. Obviously those who are protecting their own well-being which is being threatened by another group, they have every right to defend themselves. That is why I feel that attacking "non-combatants" should be part of the definition as well.

No leap of faith then, Crusaders (and the Pope), and the Jewish people with Moses still would fit the definition of terrorism if religion and attacking are part of the definition. Even if you add "non-combatants".

You do not need religion to be a terrorist.

Question, do you know who, historically started using modern terrorism in the middle east and who they used it against?

 

[leibowde84]

I never meant to imply you did say that, what I am saying, include religion in the definition things get sketchy, which is why it is not part of the definition



No leap of faith then, Crusaders (and the Pope), and the Jewish people with Moses still would fit the definition of terrorism if religion and attacking are part of the definition. Even if you add "non-combatants".

You do not need religion to be a terrorist.

Question, do you know who, historically started using modern terrorism in the middle east and who they used it against?

I never said that religion was necessary in any way for anyone to be considered a "terrorist." I merely said that it should be one of the options, along with political and social concerns.

Why do you think that religions should get a free pass?

 

[JoStories]

That is a pathetically worthless definition.

How so? Please explain how that does not really capture the meaning confered by the term terrorism? Typically, terrorism is directly toward a political or religious end. How would you define this term?

 

[JoStories]

This, by the way, is qualitatively more accurate …

​

Yet it leaves out religious terrorism and I cannot define the actions of 9/11 in any other way. This horrific act was based on muslim's hatred of America and while it had political intent as well, it was also religious,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet it leaves out religious terrorism and I cannot define the actions of 9/11 in any other way. This horrific act was based on muslim's hatred of America and while it had political intent as well, it was also religious,

Rubbish writ large is no less rubbish.

 

[Wu Wei]

I never said that religion was necessary in any way for anyone to be considered a "terrorist." I merely said that it should be one of the options, along with political and social concerns.

Why do you think that religions should get a free pass?

Never said it should have a free pass and I have explained that more than once, reread my posts. The fact is that it is not part of any official definition and none of those definitions agree on the exact definitions.

 

[leibowde84]

Rubbish writ large is no less rubbish.

Why is it rubbish? Care to provide reasoning as to why religious beliefs should not be included in the definition of the term "terrorist?" Because that's all she claimed.

Also, why does large writing bother you. She always writes big, and I like it cut its easier to read.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Care to provide reasoning as to why religious beliefs should not be included in the definition of the term "terrorist?"

I can't see any coherent reason why religious terrorism isn't a valid concept, or why we shouldn't label violence by Islamic extremists as "terrorism". Or do Islamic extremists see themselves as being combatants in a war?

 

[JoStories]

Rubbish writ large is no less rubbish.

Ok. And so you know, mr. Rude, I have sight issues.

 

[JoStories]

Why is it rubbish? Care to provide reasoning as to why religious beliefs should not be included in the definition of the term "terrorist?" Because that's all she claimed.

Also, why does large writing bother you. She always writes big, and I like it cut its easier to read.

Have I told you lately how much I like you dear one? You, sir, are a gentleman.

 

[leibowde84]

Never said it should have a free pass and I have explained that more than once, reread my posts. The fact is that it is not part of any official definition and none of those definitions agree on the exact definitions.

It was part of your own definition ... that's what I don't get. Religious beliefs would obviously fit into "social goals." "Social goals" seem to be included in most definitions, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Wu Wei]

It was part of your own definition ... that's what I don't get. Religious beliefs would obviously fit into "social goals." "Social goals" seem to be included in most definitions, wouldn't you agree?

I am not going to continue to tell you to read post #10 so would you please read it fully.

It is not part of "my" definition. As a matter of fact "social goals" is not part of any of the definitions I supplied. However part of the FBI definition is "furtherance of political or social objectives" if you want religion to be part of that, go for it. Now for the very last time. "Religion" the word "Religion" is not part of any definition used by any law enforcement, intelligence or Military organization.

If your interpretation of "social goals", which is not part of the definitions, includes religion, so be it, but understand that you are saying it is my definition and it is not, I did not write the definition nor was I consulted on it. You want to argue for the inclusion of "religion" I suggest you talk with the FBI, NSA, CIA, Interpol, Military, or any other organization that has attempted to define terrorism. What I have stated I will stick with, "Religion" is not part of any definition of Terrorism used by any authority that studies of deals with it.