How could governments fight the war on terror? Without military action.

[schmosef]

Well, it would seem that just having this conversation makes us all terrorists.

Saudi Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment: According to Our Definition, Any Act or Thought that Contradicts the Koran and Sunna Is Terrorism

Video clip available at http://www.memritv.org

:sigh:
There's simply no place for negotiation with Koranic Jihadists.

[schmosef]

Here's a good example of what I was talking about:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/


Simply put, they don't have a real means to distinguish themselves from the Jihadists so any attempt to crack down on clerics who preach hate is considered "Islamophobia".

[Brian Ellis]

You'll have to excuse me if I consider the pogroms in russia and other countries, a form of terror. To that I'll add the other pogroms (though other names were used) against jews in muslim countries. Now please, try to explain what heavy-handed, arrogant approach and a refusal to listen to those with genuine grievances approach did the Jews have in those countries to bring those pogroms on themselves?
Would you tell me what kind of heavy-handed, arrogant approach and a refusal to listen to those with genuine grievances did the people, and especially two 16 year old girls from Netanya, did to cause an Islamic-Jihad 18 years old murderer blow himself and cut their lives short, during the days this country is on the brink of a civil war due to us GIVING things with NOTHING in return?
Please, enlighten me.

If you put your thinking cap on for just two minutes and used it objectively, you would know that the answer to both your questions is obvious. The people in question suffered from the rift caused long beforehand. People hate others who seem to appear superior to themselves.

An interesting case in point occurs in the recent ban in France of religious symbols in state schools. This includes the Christian cross, the Sikh turban, knife and bangle, the Jewish kippa, the Muslim headscarf etc. This restriction of the freedom of expression in the country that was the birthplace of the notion of the rights of man is interesting because it was seen by the popular media as applying only to the Muslim headscarf (very little mention of the other religions, except in the more intellectual press). As such, it is not surprising that the Muslims considered it as discriminatory and therefore a bone of contention. Fortunately, the authorities were able to show that their discriminatory idea was wrong and the affair has more or less died down, but the basic idea of the law was to ensure that all the kids were equal and to appear equal, with no display of religious superiority. But it could have turned very nasty if discrimination were to have been seen.

The pogroms could never have occurred if the Jews had been allowed to settle and behave like ordinary citizens instead of being herded into the Pale and other ghettos, thereby rendering them "different" with an implied notion of superiority (and they undoubtedly were intellectually superior to the masses of the ordinary native population!). Even today, there is far too much perception of "them" and "us" whether the distinction be religious, nationality/race, class, football fanaticism, skin colour, sexual orientation, type of work, food we eat, language/accent we speak, parentage and many other factors. Any of these, handled badly, can result in conflict of varying degrees, including violence leading to terrorism on a small or large scale. Even badly chosen language which may be misunderstood as "superior" can create a spark leading to a conflagration. This is why right-wing extremism is so dangerous (neo-Nazis, revisionism etc.). I must admit that when I read of alcohol-induced violence, for whatever reason or lack thereof, there is a case for prohibition (I drink in moderation, so don't get me wrong).

[TransformX]

If you put your thinking cap on for just two minutes and used it objectively, you would know that the answer to both your questions is obvious. The people in question suffered from the rift caused long beforehand. People hate others who seem to appear superior to themselves.

An interesting case in point occurs in the recent ban in France of religious symbols in state schools. This includes the Christian cross, the Sikh turban, knife and bangle, the Jewish kippa, the Muslim headscarf etc. This restriction of the freedom of expression in the country that was the birthplace of the notion of the rights of man is interesting because it was seen by the popular media as applying only to the Muslim headscarf (very little mention of the other religions, except in the more intellectual press). As such, it is not surprising that the Muslims considered it as discriminatory and therefore a bone of contention. Fortunately, the authorities were able to show that their discriminatory idea was wrong and the affair has more or less died down, but the basic idea of the law was to ensure that all the kids were equal and to appear equal, with no display of religious superiority. But it could have turned very nasty if discrimination were to have been seen.

The pogroms could never have occurred if the Jews had been allowed to settle and behave like ordinary citizens instead of being herded into the Pale and other ghettos, thereby rendering them "different" with an implied notion of superiority (and they undoubtedly were intellectually superior to the masses of the ordinary native population!). Even today, there is far too much perception of "them" and "us" whether the distinction be religious, nationality/race, class, football fanaticism, skin colour, sexual orientation, type of work, food we eat, language/accent we speak, parentage and many other factors. Any of these, handled badly, can result in conflict of varying degrees, including violence leading to terrorism on a small or large scale. Even badly chosen language which may be misunderstood as "superior" can create a spark leading to a conflagration. This is why right-wing extremism is so dangerous (neo-Nazis, revisionism etc.). I must admit that when I read of alcohol-induced violence, for whatever reason or lack thereof, there is a case for prohibition (I drink in moderation, so don't get me wrong).

If I understand you well, the heavy-handed, arrogant approach and a refusal to listen to those with genuine grievances attitude in my example, came from the terrorist majority of those countries and not of the Jews who were herded into those ghettos.
Same would be claimed for homosexuals and other human beings who are prosecuted by the country in which they live as different (china, muslim countries etc).
If this is so, I think you've contradicted yourself :

the terror is in response to a heavy-handed, arrogant approach and a refusal to listen to those with genuine grievances. If these guys have a real grievance, regional, national or international, even if it may be considered as imaginary...

I'm yet to hear of a homosexual terrorist blowing up buildings in opressive countries.
I think your definition should be updated Brian.

[GNEP]

I'm yet to hear of a homosexual terrorist blowing up buildings in opressive countries.

Interestingly and rather depressingly, we HAVE had it happen the other way around here. A homophobic nailbomber.

[Kurt]

Pogroms in Russia were NOT a form of terror.

You have to put yourself into context:

Russia was governed by a Tsar (or Tsarine) that was Orthodox. There were only the nobles and the serfs. The rest was a disturbance.

They didn't like the fact that other ppl were practicing a different religion. They did their best to make the problem disappear, but it didn't. That's problem number 1: different religion.

Then there was the emergence of the middle-class. Few serfs ever moved up and fewer nobles ever moved down. The ones increasing the ranks of the middle-class were mainly jews. That's problem number 2: middle-class.

What happened then is a strategic move: get rid of the 2 things considered as problems through focusing the attention of the population against the jews. What the ppl in power wanted was to reach their ideal for society: only nobles and serfs in an Orthodox Russia.

They wanted to get rid of the middle-class and all other religions different from christianism.

Tough luck for the jews, they were part of both problems and that's what made them the ideal target (you could say ONLY target).

[Umfriend]

And this was not terror, uhm, because?

[Kurt]

Because it was a cleansing of sorts.

[Umfriend]

I don't see how that, even if your explanation on Russia is true and complete, disqualifes the pogroms from teror. So if the jews in russia rose up against the pogroms and started killing people, that would be terrorism? The cleansing of serb-bosnia-herzogovina of the muslims is not teror? why?

[Kurt]

I'll quote Merriam-Webster:

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

See point 4. When you're killing people without discussion, it's not terror. It's cleansing.

[Kurt]

Well, murder in fact, but in Russia it was a way to get back to Autocracy, Orthodxy and National Character.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/a/au/autocracy,_orthodoxy,_and_national_character.htm

[Nowhere]

Assuming you points valid, Kurt,....they beg the question if in London or NY it was terror...

[Kurt]

Yes it was. Only the demands weren't made the same day, they've been the same for a while. "Thou shall convert to Islam or be smitten", or sth along the "DIE DIE DIE Infidel" line. Well, it's a request of sorts

[Brian Ellis]

I'll quote Merriam-Webster:

Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

See point 4. When you're killing people without discussion, it's not terror. It's cleansing.

I'll counter-quote Oxford:

/"tEr@/
LME.
[Old French terrour (mod. terreur) from Latin terror, from terrere frighten: see -OR.]

A. noun.

1. The state of being terrified or extremely frightened; intense fear or dread; an instance or feeling of this. LME.

L. Hudson The terror in which she wakes, her pulse racing. G. Daly He lived in terror that his all-consuming love would..force her to reject him. eelings

2. The state or quality of being terrible or causing intense fear or dread; a thing or person that causes terror; something terrifying. Also, a literary genre concerned with the excitation of pleasurable feelings of fear by the depiction of violence, the supernatural, etc. (freq. in novel of terror, tale of terror below). LME.

R. W. Emerson The terrors of the storm. C. S. Forester All his reading..had warned him of the terrors of a lee shore.

b. A formidable or exasperating person; a troublesome person or thing, esp. a troublesome child. Also holy terror. joc. & colloq. L19.

A. McCowen At school I was known as a terror and went looking for fights. p;

3. The use of organized repression or extreme intimidation; terrorism; spec. = the Terror below. E19.

Reader's Digest The terror began with the cold-blooded massacre of students in Tiananmen Square.

Phrases: balance of terror: see BALANCE noun. holy terror: see sense 2b above. king of terrors: see KING noun. novel of terror a tale of terror in novel form. Red Terror: see RED adjective. reign of terror a period of remorseless repression or bloodshed during which the general community live in constant fear of death or violence. tale of terror a work of fiction in which violence, the supernatural, etc., are depicted so as to excite pleasurable feelings of fear in the reader. the Terror French History the period of the French Revolution from about March 1793 to July 1794, marked by extreme repression and bloodshed. White Terror: see WHITE adjective.

Comb.: terror-bombing intensive and indiscriminate aerial bombing designed to frighten a country into surrender; terror raid a bombing raid of this nature; terror-stricken, terror-struck adjectives affected with terror, terrified.

B. verb trans. Strike with terror, terrify. arch. L16.

• terrorless adjective lacking terror; not causing fear or dread: E19.

The bold-type parts are bolded by me, to show that State-operated repression is also terror. In fact, the word terrorisme was coined by the French during the Terror and has since been transliterated into English without the final e. Le Petit Robert defines it:
TERRORISME n.m. (1794; de terreur) 1. Hist. Mot employé dans la période qui suivit la chute de Robespierre pour désigner la politique de terreur des années 1793-94. 2. Cour. Emploi systématique de mesures d'exception, de la violence pour atteindre un but politique ... "Le terrorisme peut être une méthode de gouvernement" (Romains)
My translation:
TERRORISM n. (1794 from terror) 1. Histrorical. Word used in the period following Robespierre's fall to designate the terror policy of 1793-94. 2. Current. Systematic use of exceptional measures, of violence, towards a political target... "Terrorism may be a method of government" (Romains)

By extension, the term terrorism may thus be equally employed to describe "official" repression even before the word was invented, including the pogroms, Srebenice, Warsaw, Rwanda, apartheid etc.

[Kurt]

It's all valid but doesn't apply to Russia

It wasn't the general community that feared the pogroms, just the jews.

It's the COMMUNITY that was perpetrating the pogroms. The people were encouraged to turn against the jews. It wasn't the state against the people, it was the state + people against the jews.