And what is a terrorist?
Top o' the Stack. Long but good. I go out on some limbs. Saw 'em off if you can.
« Crises There Will Always Be | Main | Another School Shooting »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
A good exchange, Bill. Not Jesuit, not recent, but Lemkin, who coined "genocide," thought the Albigensian crusade qualified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade It terrorized, was aimed at infidels by the Vatican State (helmed by Pope Not-So-Innocent III), and massacred anywhere from 20K to five times that many.
Posted by: Anthony Flood | Friday, January 05, 2024 at 07:21 AM
The premise, that we don’t use the word “terrorist” for Latin American cutthroats, is shaky.
The State Department maintains a list of designated foreign terrorist organizations. The list is dominated by groups with Arabic names, but there are:
— Segunda Marquetalia, a remnant of the FARC.
— FARC, or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, and
— Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso)
The State Department also uses this definition of terrorism: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”
“Politically motivated” seems to exclude drug cartel violence, which is another weakness in the premise.
Also note “noncombatant targets.” If the October 7 idealists had breached the barrier wall, shot up the IDF, and then withdrew back into Gaza the Middle East would be different today. The act would have been political-military in nature, not dissimilar to Egypt’s surprise breaching of the Suez Canal in the October 1973 war, and Hamas would be sitting at a negotiating table today. But lust for Jewish blood was too great. The massacre of civilians denies Hamas reprieve.
Posted by: James Soriano | Friday, January 05, 2024 at 07:42 AM
Thanks for that reference, Tony. But the question is whether Islam is the religion of terror at the present time. I say it is.
And of course if the RCC under Innocent III's papacy engaged in terrorist actions it does not follow that Roman Catholicism, let alone Christianity, is a religion whose teaching supports terrorism.
Compare the RCC under Bergoglio the Termite. It arguably does more harm than good, but it does not follow that Roman Catholicism, let alone Christianity, does more harm than good.
And then there are the Tamil Tigers. A terrorist outfit made up of Buddhists. But it does not follow that Buddhism is a religion of terror in the way that Islam is.
A Buddhist terrorist is a Buddhist per accidens: his terrorism does not derive from his Buddhism.
I take it that you are a white nationalist. But all that means is that you are white and you are a nationalist; it does not mean that you are a nationalist who thinks that his nation should exclude all non-whites. Your nationalism does not entail exclusion of non-white or white supremacy.
You are also a Christian nationalist. A similar analysis applies. You are a Christian nationalist in the same way a Tamil Tiger is a Buddhist terrorist. His terrorism does not derive from his Buddhism any more than your nationalism derives from your Christianity. But the jihadi's terrorism does derive from his religion.
Agree?
As for Bergoglio the Termite, see here: https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-francis/
With a tip of the hat to Caiati the Cat Man.
And I thought I was harsh on 'Pope' Francis. Which reminds me: 'President Biden' is an oxymoron and that to which it refers is a moron with a proven scumbag for a son. A chip off the old block(head). The apple does not fall far from the tree, etc.
Posted by: BV | Friday, January 05, 2024 at 08:19 AM
I accept your distinctions, Bill, which I'm glad my comment provoked you to draw. Islam is the religion of terror today. I'll exempt individual professing Muslims on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Anthony Flood | Friday, January 05, 2024 at 11:05 AM
>> I'll exempt individual professing Muslims on a case-by-case basis.<<
Me too. Well said.
Posted by: BV | Friday, January 05, 2024 at 12:18 PM
James,
You misunderstood me. I am not concerned with how the State Department defines 'terrorist.' In its current configuration, said department has no credibility. After all, they tag as 'domestic terrorists' Jan 6 trespassers and mommies who protest at school board meetings the destruction of curricula. .
Posted by: BV | Saturday, January 06, 2024 at 03:35 AM