Western terrorists are much worse than Muslim terrorists

[Diocle]

But I don't have to prove anything. It's the perpetrators of the war who have to prove it is not a crime of aggression, something they will not be able to do.

But examining how crimes are motivated by racism is definitely something more commonly done by the left.

Nations at war are not terrorists, war on terror is not terrorism it's the exact opposite, it's a wise act of justice and self defence.

Anyway I agree with you, seen your data, Muslim terrorists are dangerous mainly for themselves and for their people (if this scum can belong to something else than the filthy sewer that has birthed them)!

[Basil II the B.S]

Foreign policy is determined by the state's geopolitical and financial interests, which makes both Israel an Saudi Arabia, where long-term investments and old friendly relations have been established since the end of WWII, natural allies of America, something that can be said for the Islamic Republic, which has nationalised American-controlled industries and is in a Cold War with the Gulf Monarchies, the vital allies of the US in the crucial region of the Persian Gulf. Future presidents, whose will is not as powerful as that of a hypothetical absolute monarchs, are incapable of changing that, even if they wanted, which I doubt, especially for notorious populists, like Bernie Sanders.

I agree with the concept, which is why Trump could have been a good choice as in terms of someone with the personality strong enough to stand up to the system. Too bad that when it comes to Iran he's as clueless as everyone else. Sanders, unfortunately for him, lacked the personality go give the middle finger to the DNC and raise the bar.

[Himster]

What a embarrassingly ridiculous thread.

[Enros]

What a embarrassingly ridiculous thread.

What are you arguing? That somehow white people have a right to murder that many "for the greater good"?

[Himster]

What are you arguing? That somehow white people have a right to murder that many "for the greater good"?

The deliberate mischaracterization of terrorism (again) is what makes this thread fundamentally ridiculous. Using words with definitions so utterly alien to everyone, ensures one thing and one thing only: a confused mess of a thread.

[athanaric]

What are you arguing? That somehow white people have a right to murder that many "for the greater good"?

The question is, what are you arguing? For example, do you deny white people the right to be Muslim? Because it sounds like you do.

[PointOfViewGun]

The deliberate mischaracterization of terrorism (again) is what makes this thread fundamentally ridiculous. Using words with definitions so utterly alien to everyone, ensures one thing and one thing only: a confused mess of a thread.

Thread is based on the most basic definition of terrorism which is the act of terrorizing people. How is that a mischaracterization of the word? How is that definition alien to everyone?

[RangerGxi]

Why do we think Muslims are the bad guys when we've murdered almost 0.5 million people and they've only murdered 3,500? The problem isn't that Islam hates us. The problem is that we hate brown people and love to murder them in as large numbers as we can.

Where do you get the number on terrorism? 9/11 alone killed more than 3,500 people if you count the cancer and whatnot.

How about the the muslims killed by Islamic extremists?
Even without terrorist attacks in mind, ISIL's war is explicitly a religious struggle. Also, how do gouge terrorism? Do you count the religiously motivated rape in Europe?

I despise Neocons but honestly, if they had succeeded, Iraq would be secular and democratic. An Islamic extremist victory means people being stoned for being gay or an atheist.

[paleologos]

@ Enros, about the original post:
It has been analytically proven by historians that western nations have employed the means and methods of terrorism in several occasions.

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed...."
Winston Churchill, 28 March 1945 (link)

And it is not just the violent attacks.
I have made a point in this forum in the past about crimes against humanity commited by western countries against other nations, such as the embargo on vaccines against the people of Iraq during the Clinton administration.
It resulted in the deaths of 400,000 to 600,000 children.

One ought to stress the asymmetry of lethality of the means possesed by different actors.
If ISIS possesed a nuclear weapon does anyone think they would refrain from using it?

Still, I believe that comparisons of the type suggested in the OP are not what is expected by civilized people.
Am I supposed to count the body tally, like some sort of score in a macabre game to figure out which side has the "moral high ground"?

And about the comment that we "enjoy killing brown people", I would have to remark that our motives are much more banal than a Klingonensque bloodlust.
There are those of us in western countries that would like to see the price of our shares in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing (, or whatever of that same ilk) go up.
One need to make sales.

"...He (Curtis LeMay) also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war (WWII), he fully expected to be tried for war crimes..."
(from wikipedia)

[Diocle]

@ Enros, about the original post:
It has been analytically proven by historians that western nations have employed the means and methods of terrorism in several occasions.

"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed...."
Winston Churchill, 28 March 1945 (link)

And it is not just the violent attacks.
I have made a point in this forum in the past about crimes against humanity commited by western countries against other nations, such as the embargo on vaccines against the people of Iraq during the Clinton administration.
It resulted in the deaths of 400,000 to 600,000 children.

One ought to stress the asymmetry of lethality of the means possesed by different actors.
If ISIS possesed a nuclear weapon does anyone think they would refrain from using it?

Still, I believe that comparisons of the type suggested in the OP are not what is expected by civilized people.
Am I supposed to count the body tally, like some sort of score in a macabre game to figure out which side has the "moral high ground"?

And about the comment that we "enjoy killing brown people", I would have to remark that our motives are much more banal than a Klingonensque bloodlust.
There are those of us in western countries that would like to see the price of our shares in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing (, or whatever of that same ilk) go up.
One need to make sales.

"...He (Curtis LeMay) also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war (WWII), he fully expected to be tried for war crimes..."
(from wikipedia)

Following your line, we should say that all the history of war is a history of terrorism: from the time of Greek and Persian Wars, to the time of the bloody campaign of Titus against the Jews and of that of Trajan against the Dacians; from the Crusades, to the Turkish triumphal march on Wien; from the siege of Magdeburg led by Field Marshal Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim and Johann Tserclaes Count of Tilly, to the Irish expedition of Cromwell; from the French and Indian Wars, to the whole Napoleonic epic cycle; from WW1, to WW2! this interpretation may be tempting but in this way all our military history turns into a history of terror, and this would be an idiotic choice because if all is terror then .. nothing is terror! and this is unaccettable from any point of view.

So, I would stay with the definition of terrorism coined by FBI, which describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Sadly nowadays many Muslim (Saudi) political groups of sub-human scum excel in this kind of actions, they excel in creating the conditions to maximize the dimensions of the perception of the absolute political and military impotence of their own countries, they excel in creating a huge amount of pain among their own populations, they excel in disqualifying their own cause (if this scum can be credited of owning something even remotely similar to a political cause), they excel in targeting their own demented thirdworldism; they excel in losing the lives and the hopes of their own people to get .. nothing, nothing at all; that is, they excel in dementia, stupidity and incivility, but actually can we be suprised by this fact?

[paleologos]

Following your line, we should say that all the history of war is a history of terrorism: from the time of Greek and Persian Wars, to the time of the bloody campaign of Titus against the Jews and of that of Trajan against the Dacians; from the Crusades, to the Turkish triumphal march on Wien; from the siege of Magdeburg led by Field Marshal Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim and Johann Tserclaes Count of Tilly, to the Irish expedition of Cromwell; from the French and Indian Wars, to the whole Napoleonic epic cycle; from WW1, to WW2! this interpretation may be tempting but in this way all our military history turns into a history of terror...

Right up to this point I feel that we are in agreement.

...and this would be an idiotic choice because if all is terror then .. nothing is terror! and this is unaccettable from any point of view.

It is unacceptable because it is nonsensical.
Definitions that are structured in relative terms are inherently politically motivated constructs, aimed at manipulation of public opinion and the creation of moral alibis of unquestionable flimsiness.

So, I would stay with the definition of terrorism coined by FBI, which describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

The FBI hardly invented terrorism but they take it upon themselves to coin a definition about something that existed since the beggining of the history of war.
Just an exampe of a government agency creating a politically motivated construct:
Mark the word "unlawful". In other words if the government does it in territories outside of the FBI jurisdiction it is not terrorism, albeit it is still "the use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Sadly nowadays many Muslim (Saudi) political groups of sub-human scum excel in this kind of actions, they excel in creating the conditions to maximize the dimensions of the perception of the absolute political and military impotence of their own countries, they excel in creating a huge amount of pain among their own populations, they excel in disqualifying their own cause (if this scum can be credited of owning something even remotely similar to a political cause), they excel in targeting their own demented thirdworldism; they excel in losing the lives and the hopes of their own people to get .. nothing, nothing at all; that is, they excel in dementia, stupidity and incivility, but actually can we be suprised by this fact?

This part strangely implies that since mentioned political groups are evidently less competent in the use of the means and methods of terrorism they must be considered a "worse" kind of terrorists.
I hope I am reading this wrongly because I dare not imagine what a "better" kind of terrorists would look like.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Terrorism can be a bit tricky to pin down, especially when it comes things such as pro-state terror groups or state-backed paramilitaries, but in general the best definition is a faction in opposition to a government employing terror tactics.

[Papay]

US did a huge mistake. They apply colonial logic to solve modern conflicts. But colonialism died i the 1950s-60s for a reason(the west cannot any longer wage these kind of wars). The result is what we see today (endless conflicts that go nowhere)

[Heathen Hammer]

If we are going to count governments as terrorist groups, then without a doubt, and globalist/neocon government is one. Having said that, biggest terrorist organization would still be the Saudi Royal family, so...

[fkizz]

Comparing terrorism casualties to conventional warfare casualties on equal ground is utter non sense. Even leaders of Marxist countries never did such.

Quite an extremely far-right perspective from the OP. The last sentence claiming that the conflicts of the Middle East are the result of hatred between people with different skin complexions is a clearly Nazi interpretation of history, not even remotely close to that could be described as a leftist theory.

Also this. Albeit in the quote there's still the old "marxist liberation ideology" vs "neocon hawk ideology" mindset in it, modern times left and right wing are confused as heck and with much less clear divise lines, many times causing problems to the political parties in figuring out how to appeal to their voters.

Both Trump and his inner circle have adopted a fiercely anti-Iranian stance, which might be nothing but a trick, intending to manipulate the American conservatives with a Christian Coalition (Russia and the United States) against Islam, or unfortunately an accurate indication that we are heading towards war with Iran.

Trump does not like revealing his plans to his enemies. If (militarily) invading Iran was his real plot, he wouldn't have left the intention so open. Plus ISIS are not friendly with Shias, are they? And Trump doesn't mind offering a hand or two to opposing faction if the enemy is ISIS. There's Hezbollah cozying up to Russian and Assad side. That said, doing a trade war with Iran would be 100% ok given he is eager for a trade war with Mexico and China.

Though I could be wrong, and last quote reply is my gut feeling solely.

[athanaric]

Anyway, examining history as a struggle between the East and West, between whites and browns, between adults and children is a classic example of radical far-right wing partisanship and not historical materialism, which is typically attributed to the left.

But it is a narrative that most (vocal) people on the "left" are now pushing (cf. "anti-colonialism", "anti-imperialism"), despite its obviously idiotic nature. I guess the crux of the matter is that the left got bored with class and decided to venture into the race business. Also demonstrated by the omni-present race-baiting in "progressive" media.

[PointOfViewGun]

If we are going to count governments as terrorist groups, then without a doubt, and globalist/neocon government is one. Having said that, biggest terrorist organization would still be the Saudi Royal family, so...

So, it's a dick measurement context no matter what? Nice...

[Cope]

So, it's a dick measurement context no matter what? Nice...

That's the implication of the thread.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's the implication of the thread.

Not really. The implication is to consider terrorism exhaustively instead of considering a particular type of terrorism to keep a narrative intact.

[Ludicus]

Probably...Mandela was a criminal too.

Well,Far-right whites hate Mandela.Did you know that? In doubt, ask them.
The Conservative Movement's Long-Time Hate Affair With Nelson ...

Last night, it was difficult to cut through the fog of reaction from current day conservatives to the death of Nelson Mandela...

---

Western terrorists are much worse than Muslim terrorists

Terrorists are terrorists. Period.