The meaning of "atheism" and "terrorism"

[leibowde84]

I said i'm not generalizing.

I could you not be generalizing when you say, "religious people don't kill for money." That is literally a generalization. Being religious does not make you more or less likely to kill for money. There is absolutely no evidence that points this way.

 

[Stevicus]

A question: Was the Normandy invasion a terrorist act?

According to the OP's definition, possibly so, since all wars ostensibly have a political aim. According to the definition you linked to Wikipedia, it would depend on whether there was any deliberate targeting of civilians or disregard for their safety.

Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutralmilitary personnel or civilians).

I don't believe the Allies would have deliberately targeted French civilians in Normandy, as we were allied with the Free French and were also working in conjunction with the French Resistance. Of course, one might ask whether the French Resistance carried out any terrorist acts, but since they were on our side, does it really matter?

Then there were terror bombings of German cities which did deliberately target civilians, not to mention the use of atomic weapons on Japanese cities.

 

[leibowde84]

According to the OP's definition, possibly so, since all wars ostensibly have a political aim. According to the definition you linked to Wikipedia, it would depend on whether there was any deliberate targeting of civilians or disregard for their safety.



I don't believe the Allies would have deliberately targeted French civilians in Normandy, as we were allied with the Free French and were also working in conjunction with the French Resistance. Of course, one might ask whether the French Resistance carried out any terrorist acts, but since they were on our side, does it really matter?

Then there were terror bombings of German cities which did deliberately target civilians, not to mention the use of atomic weapons on Japanese cities.

I do not think that anyone could argue that civilians were specifically targeted during the Normandy invasion. Since collateral damage certainly would not put any group into the category of "targeting innocent non-combatants," I fail to see how every war would be included in this definition. The mere instance of non-combatants being killed as a result of something not intended to do so should not enact the "terrorism" classification, imho. That being said, I have changed my definition since the OP. I have agreed that adding "non-combatants" and replace "religious goals" with "social objectives" (which religion would be included in). My definition was severely lacking in the beginning.

 

[FearGod]

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?

They do as well, but they do against what their religion teach, so they are hypocrites

 

[Monk Of Reason]

They do as well, but they do against what their religion teach, so they are hypocrites

That is true. Though atheists aren't simply "allowed" to kill either.

 

[Kirran]

They do as well, but they do against what their religion teach, so they are hypocrites

Plenty of religions encourage killing in certain circumstances. Qur'an 2:191-3, for example.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do as well, but they do against what their religion teach, so they are hypocrites

Xians have told me that all Xians sin at times.
(This can be seen as human weakness or influence of Satan.)
I've no doubt that even Muslims are imperfect.
So I don't buy the No True Scotsman argument that all malefactors are atheists.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

But wouldn't that also serve to invalidate the term "terrorist"? You say that "it would take away the horror," but what does that really mean? Does this mean that the word "terrorist" is used more to evoke an emotional reaction, rather than any attempt at accuracy or clarity? And if the word is used strictly for the sake of emotion, how is not already invalidated on that basis alone?

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.

I believe that they can and will be punished more severely based on the severity of their crimes. Intent and motive might also be taken into consideration. But that doesn't mean the language has to be clouded or used more for emotional sake rather than for accuracy. Your OP pointed up one of the many traps and pitfalls in doing so.

As for what may be more "deplorable," that's a value judgment based on perception. If someone kills my friend or relative robbing a bank or house, that might be more deplorable to me than if someone killed people who are total strangers to me. Some might believe that serial killers or child molesters might be the most deplorable, even more deplorable than terrorists. Who's to say what's worse?

It's also interesting to differentiate between "violence with a political aim" versus "violence without a political aim." That might mean, if one is a "rebel without a cause," one can be as cool as James Dean. But a "rebel with a cause" would be a terrorist.

 

[FearGod]

Plenty of religions encourage killing in certain circumstances. Qur'an 2:191-3, for example.

LOL, dishonesty at its best.
You intentionally ignored the previous verse (2:190) which says
((AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.))

So it's about defense and it's normal to fight for defense.

 

[leibowde84]

They do as well, but they do against what their religion teach, so they are hypocrites

So, what was your point? Everyone who murders goes against morality/societal well-being. Why differentiate between the religious and the non-religious? It seems like an unnecessary division when discussing murder.

 

[leibowde84]

But wouldn't that also serve to invalidate the term "terrorist"? You say that "it would take away the horror," but what does that really mean? Does this mean that the word "terrorist" is used more to evoke an emotional reaction, rather than any attempt at accuracy or clarity? And if the word is used strictly for the sake of emotion, how is not already invalidated on that basis alone?



I believe that they can and will be punished more severely based on the severity of their crimes. Intent and motive might also be taken into consideration. But that doesn't mean the language has to be clouded or used more for emotional sake rather than for accuracy. Your OP pointed up one of the many traps and pitfalls in doing so.

As for what may be more "deplorable," that's a value judgment based on perception. If someone kills my friend or relative robbing a bank or house, that might be more deplorable to me than if someone killed people who are total strangers to me. Some might believe that serial killers or child molesters might be the most deplorable, even more deplorable than terrorists. Who's to say what's worse?

It's also interesting to differentiate between "violence with a political aim" versus "violence without a political aim." That might mean, if one is a "rebel without a cause," one can be as cool as James Dean. But a "rebel with a cause" would be a terrorist.

I think you are mistaking my point. I am arguing that the term must be objectively defined so as to show the objective destruction and severe punishment that comes when people "take up arms" against innocent civilians for political/social objectives. As I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, my original definition was lacking, but with a few additions, I think that the ambiguity problem disappears.

 

[Kirran]

LOL, dishonesty at its best.
You intentionally ignored the previous verse (2:190) which says
((AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.))

So it's about defense and it's normal to fight for defense.

Still killing people.

EDIT: Also, no, it wasn't an intentional leaving-out of the previous verse. I didn't look at the previous verse.

 

[FearGod]

So, what was your point? Everyone who murders goes against morality/societal well-being. Why differentiate between the religious and the non-religious? It seems like an unnecessary division when discussing murder.

I define them as irreligious similar to the way we define evil people as terrorists.

 

[Kirran]

I define them as irreligious similar to the way we define evil people as terrorists.

We don't define evil people as terrorists.

 

[FearGod]

Still killing people.

EDIT: Also, no, it wasn't an intentional leaving-out of the previous verse. I didn't look at the previous verse.

So they shouldn't defend themselves, just smile while being killed by the aggressors.

 

[FearGod]

We don't define evil people as terrorists.

Why?
aren't terrorists evil people ?

 

[Kirran]

So they shouldn't defend themselves, just smile while being killed by the aggressors.

I wasn't advocating anything. Just pointing out that many religions do, in fact, advocate killing in various circumstances.

Why?
aren't terrorists evil people ?

All terrorists being evil doesn't make all evil people terrorists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

LOL, dishonesty at its best.
You intentionally ignored the previous verse (2:190) which says
((AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.))

So it's about defense and it's normal to fight for defense.

The problem is this with Islam. What is a fair defensive strike and what counts as an assault? The Charlie Hebo murders is a good example. Many Muslims feel this was justified. I see it as cold blooded murder but they feel they are justified in killing because they were "attacked" in the sense that the cartoon was offensive. See the problems here? What is an "attack" and what is an appropriate response to said attacks? Is the mere existence of non-Muslims an attack? In some countries it is viewed this way.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I define them as irreligious similar to the way we define evil people as terrorists.

False. Many people see their acts as acts of god.

 

[Kirran]

The problem is this with Islam. What is a fair defensive strike and what counts as an assault? The Charlie Hebo murders is a good example. Many Muslims feel this was justified. I see it as cold blooded murder but they feel they are justified in killing because they were "attacked" in the sense that the cartoon was offensive. See the problems here? What is an "attack" and what is an appropriate response to said attacks? Is the mere existence of non-Muslims an attack? In some countries it is viewed this way.

Additionally, the context of the verse I posted wasn't defensive - the Muslims had just moved to Medina, so weren't under attack.