The meaning of "atheism" and "terrorism"

[Revoltingest]

Having reviewed the thought bubbles over the heads of many posters, I've figured out what's going on with the expansion of the definition of "terrorism". Events like the purposely crashed airliner cause an emotional reaction which isn't expressed by ordinary words like "murder", "killing", or "depression". The word, "terrorism", has more impact, & resonates with the feelings from events of sudden, unexpected, violent & massive death. It's accurate emotionally, if not logically.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I'm confused. So, "social objectives" were part of at least 1 of the definitions provided by you in post #10. I think it can safely be said that any religious goals would fit rightly into that category. So, at least according to the FBI, goals based on religious beliefs ("social objectives" ... I cannot see how anyone could argue otherwise, but I'm willing to listen to anything), are included. That was my point. To me, it wouldn't make sense for "religious goals" to be included verbatim, as they are a sub-category of "social objectives." Thus, if they included them, they would be forced to also include the laundry list of other "social concerns." I apologize for frustrating you, but that was my confusion. To me, religious concerns are at least apparent in the FBI's definition, and any other that uses the word "social."

 

[leibowde84]

Having reviewed the thought bubbles over the heads of many posters, I've figured out what's going on with the expansion of the definition of "terrorism". Events like the purposely crashed airliner cause an emotional reaction which isn't expressed by ordinary words like "murder", "killing", or "depression". The word, "terrorism", has more impact, & resonates with the feelings from events of sudden, unexpected, violent & massive death. It's accurate emotionally, if not logically.

It is merely changing the meaning of a term to placate people's emotions, though. I have a hard time getting behind that. Changing the meaning of terms to fit emotional states is dangerous because the impact/strength of these terms is diminished over time.

I think until we know this guy's motive, we should wait on classifying it as "terrorism." Obviously enough, "terror" is not the only prerequisite for "terrorism."

 

[FearGod]

I thought I'd make a post in reaction to NoX's misleading claims regarding "atheistic terrorism." Here are the definitions of the two relevant terms.

Atheism = a lack of belief in any deity.

Terrorism = the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political or religious aims.

Now, I'll try to help out NoX and ask whether anyone can present an example of Atheistic Terrorism without simply changing the meaning of these terms to fit your argument. Obviously, the example would have to show violence or murder done in the name of a lack of belief in any deity. And, although this shouldn't have to be said, the mere lack of any indication of someone's religious identity should in no way lead one to believe that they are atheist. It often happens that religious identities are not mentioned unless relevant to the actual violence.

I believe Mafia is a terrorist organization and i don't think they care about politics or religion, but money is their religion and i don't think they believe in any God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I believe Mafia is a terrorist organization and i don't think they care about politics or religion, but money is their religion and i don't think they believe in any God.

Depending on which mafia you are talking about they can be very religious. And as the OP pointed out it doesn't make them an Atheist terrorist organization as their crimes have nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Wu Wei]

I'm confused. So, "social objectives" were part of at least 1 of the definitions provided by you in post #10. I think it can safely be said that any religious goals would fit rightly into that category. So, at least according to the FBI, goals based on religious beliefs ("social objectives" ... I cannot see how anyone could argue otherwise, but I'm willing to listen to anything), are included. That was my point. To me, it wouldn't make sense for "religious goals" to be included verbatim, as they are a sub-category of "social objectives." Thus, if they included them, they would be forced to also include the laundry list of other "social concerns." I apologize for frustrating you, but that was my confusion. To me, religious concerns are at least apparent in the FBI's definition, and any other that uses the word "social."

Deal with law and lawyers much... you cannot safely say that at all..... I'm glad it makes sense to you, but it is your personal interpretation (not a legal one) of "social objective" and it is far from "apparent". But there can be a religious aspect to terrorism, but not all terrorism has a religious influence, therefore it is not expressly used in the definition, if it were then most South American Terrorism would not be terrorism. And then Oklahoma City bombing would not have been a terrorist act either. Nor would much of the IRA's terrorist acts. You can be happy in your interpretation and comfortable go with "Religion" as being part of the definition, but the word "Religion:" is not in any definition and that is like for the reasons I just wrote.

As to South America, it was (and is) a rather odd dynamic, terrorism seems to be more along then lines of who wins. Basically one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Social - of or relating to society or its organization.

Objective - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Goal - the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.

Interpretation - the action of explaining the meaning of something.

 

[FearGod]

Depending on which mafia you are talking about they can be very religious. And as the OP pointed out it doesn't make them an Atheist terrorist organization as their crimes have nothing to do with atheism.

Religious people don't kill for money but atheists may do, of course i ain't generalizing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Hmmm.

FBI — Most Wanted Terrorists

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Religious people don't kill for money but atheists may do, of course i ain't generalizing.

Plenty of religious people kill for money. what makes you think they don't?

 

[Wu Wei]

Hmmm.

FBI — Most Wanted Terrorists

And our point is?

If you are trying to make a case for "Religion" as being a word used in any definition of terrorism. Or if you are trying to make a case that religion has to be a part of the definition of terrorism then please she me where religion is mentioned or used on the link you supplied as part of the definition or reason the person you linked has been labeled a terrorist. Because I don't see it on the FBI's most wanted list. So please, show me where it is

 

[FearGod]

Plenty of religious people kill for money. what makes you think they don't?

I said i'm not generalizing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And our point is?

Most of the FBI most-wanted terrorists look like Islamic extremists. Sorry but I simply don't accept your claim that Islamic extremists or other religious nut-jobs aren't doing terrorism.

 

[Stevicus]

Yet largely accurate. Maybe it's a pathetically worthless word and shouldn't be flung around so much?

I agree with this. It's getting to the point where the word "terrorism" is thrown around so much that it's lost its meaning (as demonstrated by so many arguing over the definition of the term). As the saying goes, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." It's a propaganda tool designed to manipulate public opinion, since it's designed to evoke an emotional reaction. It's good enough for the yellow press, but if governments have to argue over a so-called "legal definition of 'terrorist'," then we're already up the creek. What's next? A legal definition for "jerk" or "a--hole"?

 

[JoStories]

I believe Mafia is a terrorist organization and i don't think they care about politics or religion, but money is their religion and i don't think they believe in any God.

Incorrect, most are catholic as most are also Italian. Also, it was my understanding it was not only a greed thing but also had political objectives as well. Ie: joey buttafuco, joseph valachi, Vito Genoese, etc. if one looks either on Google or bing, they are listed as an Italian political crime syndicate.

 

[JoStories]

Religious people don't kill for money but atheists may do, of course i ain't generalizing.

THUD!!!! Seriously? Are you being sarcastic? Because if not, this is just plain silly. Do thieves come out and proclaim their atheistic ties to the stealing? I don't see that as happening.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I said i'm not generalizing.

You stated that religious people don't murder. I know you didn't say all atheists murder but do you believe that religious people do not murder?

 

[leibowde84]

I believe Mafia is a terrorist organization and i don't think they care about politics or religion, but money is their religion and i don't think they believe in any God.

That's the thing, there can't just be a million different definitions of the word "terrorism," as it would invalidate the term. It cannot be just "murder", as it would take away the horror associated with killing for political/social purposes. You are, of course, welcome to think of anything as terrorism, but there must be a dividing point based on intent. If someone kills in the Mafia, they are usually driven by money or power. I would say that could be seen as a political objective, so maybe the "terrorist" classification is warranted. But, that is very different from someone killing someone while robbing a bank or house, as the intent is not nearly as deplorable.

In short, I feel it necessary to punish those that use violence to further social (religion is included in this) or political objectives more severely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's getting to the point where the word "terrorism" is thrown around so much that it's lost its meaning (as demonstrated by so many arguing over the definition of the term). As the saying goes, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

That's true, and Nelson Mandela was originally regarded as a terrorist by the South African government. But I'm not sure how this relates to the OP.

 

[leibowde84]

Religious people don't kill for money but atheists may do, of course i ain't generalizing.

Umm ... both religious people and atheists kill for money. I would assume roughly the same proportion from each. Did you write this wrong (lost in translation)? It seems illogical to even claim that religion would make it less likely that someone would kill for money.

 

[Wu Wei]

Most of the FBI most-wanted terrorists look like Islamic extremists. Sorry but I simply don't accept your claim that Islamic extremists or other religious nut-jobs aren't doing terrorism.

I never once in this entire thread said anything you just stated, you appear to need to make things up to try and support whatever argument you are trying to make

I never once said that Islamic extremists were not terrorists

Lets pick apart your post shall we

Most of the FBI most-wanted terrorists look like Islamic extremists.

looks like.... interesting statement...however that just will not hold up in any court of law. Does not matter what they look like, are they or aren't they and is there proof as to them being "Islamic extremists" walk down any street in any large city in the USA and you might see several people "you" might think "look like" Islamic extremists...does not make them one. Also it still does not prove that the "WORD" Religion is part of any accepted definition of terrorism

Now this bit of fantasy you wrote

Sorry but I simply don't accept your claim that Islamic extremists or other religious nut-jobs aren't doing terrorism.

Please, go through every single one of my post in this thread and (without editing in a quote) show me where I said, or even implied that (to quote you) "Islamic extremists or other religious nut-jobs aren't doing terrorism". Fact is I never said that you made that bit up because frankly you cannot come up with proof to the contrary to what I "REALLY" have been saying

And here it is..... There is no accepted definition of terrorism, from any law enforcement, intelligence or military organization that Includes the word "religion"

I have studied this, and I am fairly certain you haven't, my job requires me to keep up on it a bit too, and I am fairly certain yours doesn't. Now please, in future conversations if you are going to respond to me about something to at least have the courtesy to use things I actually said or use direct quotes (un edited) of things I wrote and not make things up and put words in my mouth to make a case for whatever you agenda happens to be.