Terrorists?

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

This shibboleth gets trotted out far too often. In the case of the Islamists - they are not fighting to bring freedom to anyone but to impose their own dark vision upon as many people as possible.

This cliché (not shibboleth) is trotted out often because it is perfectly true.

What would call the Tamil Tigers? If you were a Sri Lankan you would call them terrorists but if you were a Tamil you would call them freedom fighters. They are not trying to impose their way on the whole country or a foreign country, they just want a corner to themselves. The same goes for the Basque people and the Kurds.

During WWII the French resistance was, according to the Nazis, a terrorist group but to the Allies they were freedom fighters.

The Al-Qaeda is different in that its war is waged all over the world and that makes them out and out terrorists.

[Boeing Guy]

Jambutty is right,
That and the fact that Al-Qaeda want the world to live by the ultra stict Islamic sect of Wahabiism, as in Saudi Arabia.
Now you could argue thats wnat happend in the crusades, ut that was a long long time ago. Although various religions try to convert us all, Mormons, Witnesses etc. I don't see many Catholics on sucicide missions. Wahabiism is a very strict religion, women really are down trodden there, no driving, no going out in public without being covered head to toe.

[Padiham Lass]

Originally Posted by jambutty

What would call the Tamil Tigers? If you were a Sri Lankan you would call them terrorists but if you were a Tamil you would call them freedom fighters. They are not trying to impose their way on the whole country or a foreign country, they just want a corner to themselves. The same goes for the Basque people and the Kurds.

During WWII the French resistance was, according to the Nazis, a terrorist group but to the Allies they were freedom fighters.

The Al-Qaeda is different in that its war is waged all over the world and that makes them out and out terrorists.

Whatever the reason, if a group of freedom fighters are killing and injuring innocent people, in pursuit of a political agenda, they are all terrorists.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

Jambutty is right,
That and the fact that Al-Qaeda want the world to live by the ultra stict Islamic sect of Wahabiism, as in Saudi Arabia.

And not all Muslims would like to live that way. It's a pity they don't take a stand against those who claim to speak in their name.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by jambutty

This cliché (not shibboleth) is trotted out often because it is perfectly true.

What would call the Tamil Tigers? If you were a Sri Lankan you would call them terrorists but if you were a Tamil you would call them freedom fighters. They are not trying to impose their way on the whole country or a foreign country, they just want a corner to themselves. The same goes for the Basque people and the Kurds.

During WWII the French resistance was, according to the Nazis, a terrorist group but to the Allies they were freedom fighters.

The Al-Qaeda is different in that its war is waged all over the world and that makes them out and out terrorists.

My word works just as well.....one meaning being a slogan. And what is a slogan if not a brief attention-getting phrase? Fits the bill.

I made a point of separating the Islamists, (Al-Qaeda being but one branch of the same tree), from the other groups you have mentioned above. All use or have used terrorist tactics but not to the same aim as the radical Muslims.