<p>The fact that people keep on resorting to terrorism is starting to become idiotic. Examples:</p>
<li><p>Palestinians were almost to the point of statehood, but they desperately needed for Hamas to kidnapp an Israeli soldier, and now the whole country is getting its ass kicked</p></li>
<li><p>Kashmiris in India were on the path toward economic revitalization, but then they decided to support the terrorists resurgance, and guess what, India is putting thousands of more troops in, after they pulled out</p></li>
<li><p>Historical example: Alegerians resorted to terrorism against their colonial rulers (France) and the country is still in ruins</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Is it so hard to come to the conclusion that if you live in peace, your region will do well economically, and then your lives will improve also. Seriously, why the hell is everyone letting these radical islamic idiots move back in, why the hell can’t they just move on like the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Um, because desperate people turn to desperate means. Terrorism won't stop until we address these peoples' needs or at least treat them as our equals and negotiate with them. We have to treat them as human beings. Of course, murder is not allowed, but to stop it, we first have to help the people who are turning to it. Otherwise they will just become more frustrated with us and the terror will continue. I'm not defending terrorists here--I'm saying that we have to understand them and what they want. We don't have to grant it--we just can't afford to alienate them.</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with that, however, even though people attempt to help them, they still resort to it. For example, in Kashmir, the government is offering up jobs and economic incentives, but still nothing. This same thing also applies to Afghanistan, it almost seems as though they listen to nothing but violence.</p>
<p>I know it comes off as slightly condescending, but I can't help it.</p>
<p>lol people will be people. culture of violence, etc. well, the only thing we can do is not to resort to violence ourselves. we can't really change other people beyond what the government has allegedly done in that situation. so the most we can do is be role models and hope for the best.</p>
<p>Americans revolted and attacked the british and they were able to gain independence.</p>
<p>In Cuba some of the rebels used suicide attacks and terroristic tactics and were able to overthrow the dictatorship and install Castro and communism.</p>
<p>Freedom fighting is what the Americans did in 1775. Freedom fighting is when you fight (sometimes via shady means) to secure a land for you to peacefully live in. </p>
<p>Terrorism is when you attack a foriegn country that does not threaten you. What has Israel done beside be Jewish to Hezbollah and Hamas? Not really much (they did stuff but enough to warrant military reprisal). Therefore their attacks (firing rockets into civlians) is terrorism.</p>
<p>Purposefully attacking civilians in a state of war for the pure purpose of destruction, disruption and terror is a war crime (otherwise it is collateral damage). This is what the Nazis did and to a certain extent the Allies (Dresden, Tokyo..).</p>
<p>So yes terrorism is bad, war crimes are bad, but freedom fighting is not.</p>
<p>a lot of leaders like bin laden or arafat just have outstanding persuasive skills and know what strings to pull inside the islam religion and view of the world to get ordinary people to follow them and do what they tell them.
In addition, islamic faith itself is very belligerent, emphasizing violence as the ultimate mean of achieving goals. Guess why you won't find a single hindu terrorist ;)</p>
<p>"Guess why you won't find a single hindu terrorist"</p>
<p>Not true. There are plenty of Hindu terrorists in Pakistan. People might say "Well, they're not religiously-motivated but politically-motivated," but the same argument applies to Islamic terrorists and terror groups, IMO. Underneath all of their religious hyperbole, their true aims are political. By riling up uneducated and poor Muslims with "God-speak" and portraying themselves as prophets, men like bin Laden merely use Islam as an effective means to achieve their political ends. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, it's really about money.</p>
<p>A lot of it revolves around power - a particular individual or group wants to be in power regardless of the welfare of the rest of the occupants of the country. These people will use a number of strong-arm tactics including religion (coerce the people), military power (force the people), and the economy (subdue the people economically - make them dependent) to take or keep their place in power. This has happened forever and continues to happen today. This relatively simple idea of individual power acquisition escapes man people's perspectives on what's really happening in the world and why.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a lot of leaders like bin laden or arafat just have outstanding persuasive skills and know what strings to pull inside the islam religion and view of the world to get ordinary people to follow them and do what they tell them.
In addition, islamic faith itself is very belligerent, emphasizing violence as the ultimate mean of achieving goals. Guess why you won't find a single hindu terrorist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ever hear of the Tamil Tigers? Try to look into things with detail before making broad statements like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A surge in violence has left Sri Lanka dangerously close to resuming a war best known for its suicide bombings -- a vicious conflict that for 18 years pitted rebels from the Hindu Tamil minority against the government dominated by the Buddhist Sinhalese majority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
* Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, aka Tamil Tigers)- Sri Lanka. One of the largest terrorist groups with 24,000 Tamil terrorists who fight for separation from Sri Lanka. The group has carried out 240+ suicide bombings since the early 80s in the process of what they describe as their freedom struggle. Members of the group were convicted for the suicide bomber assassinations of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa (1988-1993) and former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.[6]
<p>"Terrorism" isn't just limited to poor people with crude bombs. In a truly egalitarian sense of the word, any country that exercises some kind of intimidation is "terrorizing" others, and is therefore a terrorist. In that sense, the most powerful countries in the world are the biggest terrorists because they use military and economic might to force poorer nations to do their will.</p>
<p>Terrorism seems to be defined by who gets scared.</p>