Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poptart86)
    there is so much crap in this thread, all people need to get over is these stupid generalisations of muslims and terrorists - you cannot say that a whole religion is the cause of terrorism.
    Do you see people from another religion attacking the West? Surely the Serbs have more grievances against the West than British-born Pakistanis.

    I think terrorism is partly because of all the inequality in the world - they obviously resent the way the world is in the West and what the West has done in the past (i.e. invading Iraq).
    Is that why the two areas of the world with the largest inequalities, South America and Africa, also don't have terrorists?

    I may be wrong but if every government actually respected human rights then maybe we would live in peace.
    Yeah, I'm sure the likes of bin Laden cares about your human rights record. :rolleyes: Just like the way to appease Hitler was to disarm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah, I'm sure the likes of bin Laden cares about your human rights record. :rolleyes: Just like the way to appease Hitler was to disarm.
    Quite Charming, eh
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)

    Is that why the two areas of the world with the largest inequalities, South America and Africa, also don't have terrorists?
    What would you call the private armies- and the state armies too- all over South america and Africa, if not terrorists? they are merely terrorising the people near them, because it's more profitable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poptart86)

    there is so much crap in this thread, all people need to get over is these stupid generalisations of muslims and terrorists - you cannot say that a whole religion is the cause of terrorism.
    No, but you can say that there are elements in that religion that encourage and inspire terrorism.
    I think terrorism is partly because of all the inequality in the world - they obviously resent the way the world is in the West and what the West has done in the past (i.e. invading Iraq).
    Bin Laden is a millionaire. The people who flew aeroplanes into the WTC were university educated and middle class. Many of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis- by definition wealothy, in fact. The four bombers in London were able to travel at will tpo pakistan or the USA. They weren't exactly impoverished.
    I may be wrong but if every government actually respected human rights then maybe we would live in peace.
    Take a look at the islamic declaration of human rights. Quite a few things you and i would think are human rights aren't included.
    It is quite worrying that the suicide bombers in London were homegrown - they obviously resented the way their life was in the West and so felt so strongly about it they felt the need to actually talk their own (and other people's) lives.
    They also thought that ending up in paradise forever was pretty wonderful too. I suspect what they resented about their life ion the west was- in part at least- the fact that the rest of us didn't think they were quite as wonderful as they did.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    What would you call the private armies- and the state armies too- all over South america and Africa, if not terrorists? they are merely terrorising the people near them, because it's more profitable.
    Terrorism is defined by intent, and the intent of those armies is to make a profit not to kill civilians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Many of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis- by definition wealothy, in fact.
    Not all Saudis are wealthy, just most people never come into contact with the ones that aren't.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Terrorism is defined by intent, and the intent of those armies is to make a profit not to kill civilians.
    Well there were quite a few definitions of 'terrorism' on Google Definitions; for example

    (Original post by Google Definitions)
    The use of extreme violence or the threat of violence by states, groups or individuals to generate fear in individuals and thus manipulate their behavior.
    and

    (Original post by Google Definitons)
    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.
    Would not deliberately targetting civilians in order to make a financial gain class as generating fear in individuals and thus manipulating their behaviour? Also don't forget groups already accepted to be terrorists such as FARC (see http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/farc.htm) and ELN (see http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/farc.htm), both of which are Marxist groups fighting for their ideology which, arguably, they believe will serve to even out the inequality they are or perceive themselves to be suffering.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    Would not deliberately targetting civilians in order to make a financial gain class as generating fear in individuals and thus manipulating their behaviour? Also don't forget groups already accepted to be terrorists such as FARC (see http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/farc.htm) and ELN (see http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/farc.htm), both of which are Marxist groups fighting for their ideology which, arguably, they believe will serve to even out the inequality they are or perceive themselves to be suffering.
    The manipulation is meant to be in political terms. Otherwise, a serial killer or rapist would be a terrorist. And if you really believe that FARC cares about Marxism, then you should do some more research on the group. It's a criminal gang whose only goal is profit and survival; communism is a facade to attract support from the masses (which has been failing).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Terrorism is defined by intent, and the intent of those armies is to make a profit not to kill civilians.
    However it is necessary to kill civilians to make the profit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    Not all Saudis are wealthy, just most people never come into contact with the ones that aren't.
    As Saudi citizens receive an income from the state they can be characterised as wealthy, particularly by world standards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The manipulation is meant to be in political terms. Otherwise, a serial killer or rapist would be a terrorist. And if you really believe that FARC cares about Marxism, then you should do some more research on the group. It's a criminal gang whose only goal is profit and survival; communism is a facade to attract support from the masses (which has been failing).
    Well of course they don't care about Marxism!! But they claim they are a Marxist group, and ostensibly have a political agenda.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    As Saudi citizens receive an income from the state they can be characterised as wealthy,
    Does that mean that everyone who receives benefits or other income from the state is wealthy?

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    particularly by world standards.
    Tell that to the villagers in the desert with a very basic standard of living and little money (for example subsistence farmers).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Well, unfortunately it weakens the claim that the Guardian columnist is, apparently, a mainstream muslim voice. However, yes, Im pleased to see that again blogs are proving to be a breath of fresh air in an stale, inflexible and often inaccurate industry. Its a win win situation.
    Since I originally posted the link, I thought you might be interested in the Guardian's amateur response.

    http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...534497,00.html

    and Scott Burgess' destruction of it.

    http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_d...re_aslam_.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    Does that mean that everyone who receives benefits or other income from the state is wealthy?
    By world standards, yes.


    Tell that to the villagers in the desert with a very basic standard of living and little money (for example subsistence farmers).
    As SA is proud of how much it has improved the productivity of farmers, how many subsistence farmers are there? Again, by world standards, Saudi subsistence farmers are misnamed: they have the safety net of state subsidy which othersw- real subsistence farmers, you might say- do not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    By world standards, yes.


    As SA is proud of how much it has improved the productivity of farmers, how many subsistence farmers are there? Again, by world standards, Saudi subsistence farmers are misnamed: they have the safety net of state subsidy which othersw- real subsistence farmers, you might say- do not.
    Hmmm ok, well, whatever, I still wouldn't describe them as 'wealthy'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    Hmmm ok, well, whatever, I still wouldn't describe them as 'wealthy'.
    Here:

    Begging Ban Exposes Saudi Poverty

    and

    Saudis Quicksand of Poverty

    "Actual poverty has been endemic in Saudi Arabia now for the last six or seven years. I think I would not be exaggerating if I said people under the line of poverty would be 20% or 30%," said Saad Fagih, head of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, a London-based group critical of the Saudi government.

    and

    Economic crisis taking Saudi ‘royals’ to the edge of a hole of their own making

    The government has pared agricultural subsidies

    Your original comment was

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Many of the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis- by definition wealothy, in fact.
    in fact nothing about world standards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    in fact nothing about world standards.
    Didn't think it necessary: compare the average income in Saudi Arabia with the world average income and it's pretty obvious, even if SA has become much less wealthy recently that itr is comparatively well off. How many terrorists have there been from Niger or Burkina Faso or Sierra Leone- the really impoverished countries? the alleged bombers in London may come from eritrean or somali families, but the very fact they were able to get out suggests that they were comparatively wealthy to begin with.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Didn't think it necessary: compare the average income in Saudi Arabia with the world average income and it's pretty obvious, even if SA has become much less wealthy recently that itr is comparatively well off. How many terrorists have there been from Niger or Burkina Faso or Sierra Leone- the really impoverished countries? the alleged bombers in London may come from eritrean or somali families, but the very fact they were able to get out suggests that they were comparatively wealthy to begin with.
    Well, I'd suppose that all of the really poor people are living(and dying) in poverty, so they wouldn't be able to be a threat to britain.

    How long do you think it will be til somebody suggests having anyone 'suspect' (ie. muslim) live in poverty as a solution to the problem?

    EDIT: I've become bitter! I should probably stop posting here... some people just stress me out.
    (not everyone mostly just that guy who said all muslims should be deported... he knows who he is)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Didn't think it necessary: compare the average income in Saudi Arabia with the world average income and it's pretty obvious, even if SA has become much less wealthy recently that itr is comparatively well off. How many terrorists have there been from Niger or Burkina Faso or Sierra Leone- the really impoverished countries? the alleged bombers in London may come from eritrean or somali families, but the very fact they were able to get out suggests that they were comparatively wealthy to begin with.
    No, you made a blanket statement saying that every Saudi was wealthy; I have endeavoured to show you that this is not the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Since I originally posted the link, I thought you might be interested in the Guardian's amateur response.

    http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...534497,00.html

    and Scott Burgess' destruction of it.

    http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_d...re_aslam_.html
    Even the French left attacks the Guardian!
    http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=313814
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ayaan)
    Well, I'd suppose that all of the really poor people are living(and dying) in poverty, so they wouldn't be able to be a threat to britain.

    How long do you think it will be til somebody suggests having anyone 'suspect' (ie. muslim) live in poverty as a solution to the problem?
    I think there are probably people who would regard that as the more humane alternative.
    I think that poverty- especially comparative poverty- has a lot to do with islamic terrorism, but i don't think there is a direct connection. There is the belief that "the west" has exploited islamic countries and "stolen" from them. In the UK the fact that many muslims are isolated in small communities that see themselves as besieged by hostile enemies where their great educational achievement- knowledge of the koran- is regarded as useless and unimportant [The community I was raised in- Glasgow Irish- had a similar outlook, but not quite as strong and it was much easier to move out into the outside world]. This is connected with the belief that muslims are the best of mankind and ought to be governing the world: if you believe that absolutely and see constant evidence that it isn't so you will get more and more embittered. In Saudi Arabia the comparative impoverishment of the last few years hasn't helped, I'd think, and the mixture of opulence and puritanism probably has a drastic effect, as does the dependence on foreigners for skilled as well as unskilled labour. The self-identification as muslims above all else means that many find it hard adapt to living as a minority without power and islamic pride makes that even worse. I don't know, and I'm not trying to be offensive, but i wonder whether the tribalism and belief in their racial and religious superiority exhibited by some Somalis isn't involved too, if the reports that there are Somalis involved are correct.

    I can see why you might want to go: a lot of other muslims have gone too. Are you keeping in touch with each other through PMs? It would be worth thinking and discussing carefully some of the implications and consequences of basic muslim tenets among yourselves without outside intervention and probably some of you could do with support. As you may have noticed, I'm not very fond of islam and many of the consequences of islamic belief, but- I hope- i have never personally insulted muslims, except insofar as muslims can find criticism of islam an attack on themselves because of their primary identification as muslims. There is an irony in finding myself appearing to defend islam because i want to criticise it for what I think are good reasons rather than bad ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MolsakaG)
    No, you made a blanket statement saying that every Saudi was wealthy; I have endeavoured to show you that this is not the case.
    In terms of the world every Saudi is wealthy. I agree that there is comparative poverty within the country, and extreme wealth, which doesn't help, but Saudis do not face the prospect of starvation or dispossession. Nearly all know that they will eat tomorrow. As i said above, part of the motivation for islamic terrorists may be the comparative power and weakness of the islamic world, compared with the way they believe it was and should be, but concern about poverty in general doesn't play much part in their rhetoric or- for that reason- in their motivation.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.