Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's his M.O.
Colombia: Bombing Campaign Targets Civilians
(New York, December 17, 2002) The recent spate of bombings in Colombian cities has caused dozens of civilian casualties and is being used to spread terror, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called on the forces planting these explosives to stop this reprehensible campaign, which constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law and is clearly meant to threaten and intimidate Colombia's democratically-elected congress at a time when they are making decisions critical to the country's future.
"What violent groups cannot accomplish through argument and debate they are attempting to achieve through terror. We stand with Colombians who are attempting to work out their differences with respect for the law, not by maiming the innocent."
"What violent groups cannot accomplish through argument and debate they are attempting to achieve through terror," said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. "We stand with Colombians who are attempting to work out their differences with respect for the law, not by maiming the innocent."
On December 13, a book bomb disguised as a gift was sent to Senator Germán Vargas Lleras at his congressional office in Bogotá, and the explosion injured his face and hands. Later that day, a suitcase bomb was detonated nearby, in a restaurant at the Resedencias Tequendama, a hotel where many congressional representative reside during the legislative session. At least 23 were injured. The next day, another bomb was detonated in a store in residential area north of the downtown.
Earlier in the week, government authorities also reported deactivating five separate remote-controlled car bombs packed with at least 550 pounds of explosives, ready to be deployed. In the past, both guerrillas and paramilitaries have used bombs to spread terror. Therefore, it is critical that the government dedicate the necessary resources to fully investigate these crimes and bring to justice those responsible
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/colombia1217.htm
You really arn't that bright are you? It was the Liberal's who backed President Bush to go into Iraq. The President can not goto War without the support of the House. The majority of Dem's voted for it including your beloved Seantor Clinton.
either that or she is trying to justify the actions of one terrorist group because another group is worse by his definition....which, if accepted......would mean .... with a little moral relativisim throuwn in.....
all groups or no groups would be terrorists and thus all all actions are justified....
By far, Muslims have commited the most terrorist act over the past few decades. Thats a well known premise.
What I was trying to do was advocate that the word "terrorist" does not mean muslim. It means any group commiting violence on civilians for two reason, one being political....the other being religious.
Every single religion on earth has its extremists, and when that turns violent it becomes a terrorist act. Religion in general subconsciously founded terrorism.
So to say that there is a religion (christianity) that is so devine, and good that it must rid the world of evil people, makes the United state no better than any religious terrorist group.
What is so great about United States christianity that made us believe it is so much better than islam? The history is the same! The book is nearly identical and full of fairy tales and rhetoric.
All this violence over who thinks which book is better and more believable?
How are muslims and christians so different? Nothing against christianity or islam, but those are the top two reasons for 2,000 years of violent activity be it terrorism or warfare.
By far, Muslims have commited the most terrorist act over the past few decades. Thats a well known premise.
What I was trying to do was advocate that the word "terrorist" does not mean muslim. It means any group commiting violence on civilians for two reason, one being political....the other being religious.
Every single religion on earth has its extremists, and when that turns violent it becomes a terrorist act. Religion in general subconsciously founded terrorism.
So to say that there is a religion (christianity) that is so devine, and good that it must rid the world of evil people, makes the United state no better than any religious terrorist group.
What is so great about United States christianity that made us believe it is so much better than islam? The history is the same! The book is nearly identical and full of fairy tales and rhetoric.
All this violence over who thinks which book is better and more believable?
How are muslims and christians so different? Nothing against christianity or islam, but those are the top two reasons for 2,000 years of violent activity be it terrorism or warfare.
Your simply so wrong it is hard to make you understand. The Christan religion does not preach murder or forced conversion. And no large segment of said religion has practiced terror or any of the autrocities from the dark ages for over 300 or 400 years. Islam on the other hand DOES teach that murder of non believers is acceptable and preferred if they do not submit to either conversion or accept their status as third class citizens with no rights except what the religion feels like giving them.
The Islamic religion was created and founded by a WARRIOR. It does NOT teach peace. The only peace it teaches is that if you are a muslim or convert you may have some rights, depending on which sect you belong to and what area of the world your in. Major religious leaders of the religion issue Jihads and proclamations of death sentences ALL the time. For any slight or preceived slight. The religion teaches that you can be murdered or imprisoned for leaving the religion, for touching the holy book with the wrong hand and a good number of religious leaders of the religion believe you can be murdered if you do not pray 5 times a day or do what ever they order you to do.
The Islamic religion believes that religion and politics are all the preview of the religious leaders, that Government must be run by religious leaders and based solely on religious law and beliefs. The religion believes that EVERY person on earth must be converted or killed. It is ok to use unbelievers if they submit though.
This are not fantasy talking points, they are true statements of WHAT THE RELIGION believes and teaches. The only difference between a "moderate" Muslim and a terrorist, is the moderate may believe it is ok to wait for birth rates to convert non Muslim countries to Muslim.
With out a reformation this religion is a threat to everyone NOT a member of the religion. Now if there were no terrorists that wanted conversion NOW, the threat would be minor and we could easily live with the idea that they want to convert everyone eventually. But THOUSANDS and more likely MILLIONS of Muslims are more then willing to use terror and force to get to a world Caliphate NOW not later.
Marxist terrorists and drug lord terrorists in some Country are no threat to the world, just to the local country they are in. Muslim terrorists are a world wide THREAT. They do NOT limit their attacks to one country , they actively attack any group, person or country that does NOT cow tow to them.
Until the left wakes the hell up, we will continue to die in terrorist attacks, getting bigger and bolder every time. Ignoring them won't work, appeaseing them short of conversion , won't work. It may delay your death for a few years but eventually they will get back to you.
Claiming American foreign policy is to blame for terrorist attacks against the US is the same as claiming Japan attacked America in WW2 because of foreign policy. It may have a kernel of truth to it, but it ignores the REAL facts and the REAL problem.
By far, Muslims have commited the most terrorist act over the past few decades. Thats a well known premise.
No, its not a well known premise. Its only an assumption, because the american media tends to focus on terrorisism that involves muslims, because that is the primary threat to us.
In terms of worldwide terrorism in the last few decades, there have been massive terrorist campaigns that do not involve islam. Half a million were killed in Rwanda. A quarter of a million were killed in the balkans. Is going into a village with machettes and hacking everyone to death, less of a terrorist act, than a hotel bombing? Is rounding up bosnian civilians and executing them any less of a terrorist act, than driving a car bomb into a market place?
If you want to skew the poll, and limit it to just terrorist bombings, there are plenty of examples of mass terror bombing campaigns in south america and south asia that do not involve muslims.
I don't pretend to know who committed the "most" terrorism. I do know that to assume most of it is perpetrated by muslims, is simply based on the perceptions we get from watching american media. There is a LOT of terrorism that we never hear about, because it doesn't affect american or western interests. And thus, is never reported to any great extent in our media.
Are you saying that christianity never forced conversion? Is that what your saying? Wow. You need to read a book OTHER than the bible.
What exactly are you trying to refute in my statement. I did not say that neo-christianity as we know it now is a threat. I said that christianity in general has commited more terrorist acts over the past 2,000 years. I will link you to all the genocides if you like, perhaps the invasions, or the death toll maybe? Just let me know when you are ready for that information.
If not, well then explain to me what you are trying to refute. I dont understand.
Are you saying that the majority of MUSLIMS are the problem? wow. So the majority of all muslims are terrorists? Really?
As for you, I am not trying to insult you or anything but it does not take the main stream media to realize that muslims and the religion of ISLAM in general is behind a majority of the past 2 decades worth of terrorist activity. Im not implying that all muslims are bad like RSG over here, I am implying that religious irresponsibility in general is the foundation of terrorism and it goes back to the formation of the catholic church.
Here are different sub categories of terrorism
Anarchist
Anti-Globalization
Communist/Socialist
Environmental
Leftist
Nationalist/Separatist
Racist
Religious
Right-Wing Conservative
Right-Wing Reactionary
There are terrorist groups that fall into these ideologys all over the globe.
If you want to check the raw data about muslims or religious terrorism, here is your database:
http://www.tkb.org/
Your simply so wrong it is hard to make you understand. The Christan religion does not preach murder or forced conversion. And no large segment of said religion has practiced terror or any of the autrocities from the dark ages for over 300 or 400 years. Islam on the other hand DOES teach that murder of non believers is acceptable and preferred if they do not submit to either conversion or accept their status as third class citizens with no rights except what the religion feels like giving them.
The Islamic religion was created and founded by a WARRIOR. It does NOT teach peace. The only peace it teaches is that if you are a muslim or convert you may have some rights, depending on which sect you belong to and what area of the world your in. Major religious leaders of the religion issue Jihads and proclamations of death sentences ALL the time. For any slight or preceived slight. The religion teaches that you can be murdered or imprisoned for leaving the religion, for touching the holy book with the wrong hand and a good number of religious leaders of the religion believe you can be murdered if you do not pray 5 times a day or do what ever they order you to do.
The Islamic religion believes that religion and politics are all the preview of the religious leaders, that Government must be run by religious leaders and based solely on religious law and beliefs. The religion believes that EVERY person on earth must be converted or killed. It is ok to use unbelievers if they submit though.
This are not fantasy talking points, they are true statements of WHAT THE RELIGION believes and teaches. The only difference between a "moderate" Muslim and a terrorist, is the moderate may believe it is ok to wait for birth rates to convert non Muslim countries to Muslim.
With out a reformation this religion is a threat to everyone NOT a member of the religion. Now if there were no terrorists that wanted conversion NOW, the threat would be minor and we could easily live with the idea that they want to convert everyone eventually. But THOUSANDS and more likely MILLIONS of Muslims are more then willing to use terror and force to get to a world Caliphate NOW not later.
Marxist terrorists and drug lord terrorists in some Country are no threat to the world, just to the local country they are in. Muslim terrorists are a world wide THREAT. They do NOT limit their attacks to one country , they actively attack any group, person or country that does NOT cow tow to them.
Until the left wakes the hell up, we will continue to die in terrorist attacks, getting bigger and bolder every time. Ignoring them won't work, appeaseing them short of conversion , won't work. It may delay your death for a few years but eventually they will get back to you.
Claiming American foreign policy is to blame for terrorist attacks against the US is the same as claiming Japan attacked America in WW2 because of foreign policy. It may have a kernel of truth to it, but it ignores the REAL facts and the REAL problem.
I think almost all terrorism is political in nature. Trying to assign most of it to a religion, is problematic.
Even al qaeda's goals are largely political. To drive the US out of the middle east. To allow arabs (those who are not aligned with western interests) to control their natural resources (oil). These are their stated goals. I'm not agreeing with it. I'm stating it as a fact. The fact that they use religious terminology to lure gullible followers into their jihad, is almost secondary to their true political goals.
The Hindu separtists in Sri Lanka, could theoretically be linked to the Hindu relgion. But, their goals are largely political. An independent Tamil homeland, in Sri Lanka.
Kurdish muslim terrorists, may be linked to the islamic religion. But they kill Turks and Iranians for largely political reasons - for an independent Kurdistan.
True, nearly all terrorist groups have a political goal.
But your not going to teach a political goal to an 8 year old recruit. These ideology's are not temporary they are generational.
It starts with religious irresponsibility. And a manipulated education system.
And the reason I say irresponsibility is because of what jeff wartman said. The problem is not Islam as a religion, or any religion for that matter. It is the irresponsibility of allowing false interpretations and political goals to seep into the education of religious children, spawing generations of extremists who were manipulated into believing something that is not even interpreted in the right way.
I would suggest that you certainly can teach a political goal to an 8 year old. It has happened repeatedly in Africa and in Asia...and "radical religion" plays little role in the terrorism on those continents.
I would argue that terrorism as it relates to Islam is both political and religious. It is the stated goals of the fundamentalists that the entire world should fall under Islamic rule and Sharia law. That the only true faith is Islam, all others are heretical. They make no secret of this.
Every true Muslim is required by their faith to offer infidels the opportunity to convert to Islam. Kind of the Jehovah's Witnesses of the Middle East.
No fair pulling your head out of the sand, mick.
I would characterize it as a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition for the Middle East.
I would characterize it as refusing to look at what is standing right in front of your face for fear of being labelled a (OMG) "racial profiler."
Who pray tell has said the entire ME is terrorist? That isn't what the question asks.
That is a common misconseption. The interesting thing about terrorism, is that in a way it's always religious. If you look at the ideologies and forms of organization, practices, and so forth of the secular terrorists, beginning with Narodnaya Volya, the Russian terrorists in the 19th century, you find that in some ways they seemed structurally a whole lot like religious terrorism, or vice versa. That is to say they often involve martyrdom, they often involve a kind of faith that if we do these violent acts, ultimately our cause will triumph. And it's not necessarily a rational thing, it's pure faith, it's a leap of faith. They often involve extreme feelings of unworthiness and dedication on the part of the martyrs.
The way that George Bush and people in his administration and others around the world who are opposing terrorism use this kind of Augustinian concept of evil, that the terrorists are evil, it's totally ahistorical. It's not just saying these people are bad because they shouldn't have done this, they hurt innocent people and it's not proportional to the injury that they were done, or whatever you want to say; making an ethical argument against it is fine. But to view it as absolute evil, as some eruption from the underworld, is a way of refusing to deal with it as an historical phenomenon.
