Well, if that's how you perceive the world, then at least your views are internally consistent. I don't think there is any pattern to the violent lunatics on the uttermost fringes of Christianity. You seem to think there is a systematic effort to impose religious values by violence and intimidation. Right now I don't see a way to reconcile those points of view.
The KKK is a particularly good example. It is primarily racist. If we imagine its polarity reversed - minority groups committing the same acts of violence and intimidation against the straight white Christians - it would have been terrorism. As it is now, it isn't. Why? Because it doesn't cause fear and outrage in the larger society, only within the well-defined minority groups that are targeted. Correspondingly there is not much pressure on the government either. So instead of fear and lothing the official response is firm but dignified disapproval.
Note that the above is intended to be descriptive, not normative. The danger of dividing the world in "terrorists" and "non terrorists" is that you get different ethical standards depending on the targets of violence.
So... Hezbollah aren't terrorists, because they represent a majority?
That's your distinction? The more people who aren't your targets, the less of a terrorist you are?
You *do* realise you've just eliminated Osama Bin Laden off the list of terrorists? And you've just exonerated the killers of Theo van Gogh, and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center?
Furthermore, exonerate? I think I made it clear that being a terrorist is not intrinsically better or worse than doing the same act under other circumstances, including outright war. The idea that terrorism is intrinsically the worst of all possible sins is alien to me, though I sometimes get that vibe off some politicians and media.
And to further answer the question, IRA and al-Qaeda are terrorist groups because they intentionally target the "mainstream" society, the common people on whom the government depends for its continued acceptance. If al-Qaeda had limited themselves to killing Jews, the reaction would have been a lot milder. But the whole idea about terrorism is sending a signal to all of the people: You can never be safe, any of you, anywhere, anytime. The better you get this message across, the more successful a terrorist you are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 03:33 pm (UTC)After all, you're disqualifying Operation Rescue and the KKK by virtue of not representing all Christians.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:22 pm (UTC)Note that the above is intended to be descriptive, not normative. The danger of dividing the world in "terrorists" and "non terrorists" is that you get different ethical standards depending on the targets of violence.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:28 pm (UTC)That's your distinction? The more people who aren't your targets, the less of a terrorist you are?
You *do* realise you've just eliminated Osama Bin Laden off the list of terrorists? And you've just exonerated the killers of Theo van Gogh, and the people who flew planes into the World Trade Center?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:35 pm (UTC)I have no idea what logic may lead you to the rest of your statement, so I can't comment on that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:42 pm (UTC)You've obviously never pissed off the Mossad.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 05:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 11:40 pm (UTC)