What makes a terrorist?

[6thGen]

You think Falun Gong is a statistical outlier? Ok, easy enough?


Jewish Germans in the Reich 1933-1945
Cuban anti-Castro Groups
Dalits, the lowest rung on the Indian caste system
Tibetans living under Chinese occupation
The Chinese ethnic minority community within Vietnam
Black South Africans under Apartheid
Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Muslims under Serbian Control pre 1992
Indigenous Tribes in Guatemala and Honduras



All examples of groups whose civil liberties and political rights are/were suppressed and yet did not turn to terrorism.

The ?root cause? by definition, is going to be a factor in a vast majority, if not all examples of terrorism.

My response to your post should have been obvious enough, which makes me conclude that Chess isn?t one of your strong points either?..

Checkmate.

Beyond defaulting back to your standard ?because I said so? there is no reasonable way to conclude that a suppression of civil and political rights is the root cause of terrorism.

I never said that all that are suppressed are terrorists, I said that most terrorists have had their civil liberties and political rights suppressed. You are making the common mistake of affirming the consequent. You are getting better at disguising your fallacies, but you still have a ways to go.

 

[TripleB]

I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.

 

[6thGen]

I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.

Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

I never said that all that are suppressed are terrorists, I said that most terrorists have had their civil liberties and political rights suppressed. You are making the common mistake of affirming the consequent. You are getting better at disguising your fallacies, but you still have a ways to go.

Actually we can all go back and look at what you actually did say, and you?ve modified it a bit. It?s Ok, we all know why.

Either way, that line of reasoning does not advance your argument.

It?s the MOST part of that statement which gets you into trouble.

Most terrorists are/have _________________(fill in the blank here).

With such a loose qualifier I could fill in the blank with any number of terms such as male, young, and well educated

All of which are statistically accurate but do not constitute ?the root causes? of terrorism.

Why? Because too many people have a penis, youth, and a diploma and don?t turn to terrorism. Same as those who are politically oppressed.

While it is entertaining for me to watch you writhe in the death throes of your argument, I think you should consider that for once, an admission of error would be more helpful to you than this charade.

Anyone reading this is increasing concluding that you are nuts.

?.And suffering from a physiological condition which precludes your being able to admit errors ? a condition which probably accounts for a generous portion of your political viewpoints.

 

[Miss Kitty]

I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.

Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.

Good point 3B. I think the idea of being idolized (martyrs) is strong as well as the 70 virgins waiting for them. So much brain washing.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.

Alright, Mr Let's-See-The-Evidence, where is your evidence that the Muslim terrorists use the mentally retarded? Surely, you are not saying that one would have to be mentally retarded to fly a jet into the trade towers, or to strap a bomb onto one's own person, are you?

 

[Smiling JOe]

Good point 3B. I think the idea of being idolized (martyrs) is strong as well as the 70 virgins waiting for them. So much brain washing.

One would think that sexually experienced women, waiting on the other side of death, would be more attractive if the dying terrorists' goals were to have good sex.

 

[6thGen]

Actually we can all go back and look at what you actually did say, and you?ve modified it a bit. It?s Ok, we all know why.

Either way, that line of reasoning does not advance your argument.

It?s the MOST part of that statement which gets you into trouble.

Most terrorists are/have _________________(fill in the blank here).

With such a loose qualifier I could fill in the blank with any number of terms such as male, young, and well educated

All of which are statistically accurate but do not constitute ?the root causes? of terrorism.

Why? Because too many people have a penis, youth, and a diploma and don?t turn to terrorism. Same as those who are politically oppressed.

While it is entertaining for me to watch you writhe in the death throes of your argument, I think you should consider that for once, an admission of error would be more helpful to you than this charade.

Anyone reading this is increasing concluding that you are nuts.

?.And suffering from a physiological condition which precludes your being able to admit errors ? a condition which probably accounts for a generous portion of your political viewpoints.

Are you even reading what I?ve posted? You are all over the board on fallacies, but somehow I?m the one that won?t admit when I?m wrong? That?s because I?m not wrong. Also, I?m sure the moderator will be addressing you on calling me nuts and suffering from a physiological condition as personal attacks are not tolerated as soon the warnings will end and the bannings will begin.

I?ll make my position very easy for you. Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists. I haven?t changed my position on that. People from London speak English, but we can?t assume that if we hear someone speaking English that they are from London. If you want to play ?gotcha? on my use of the term ?root causes?, you can split hairs on the use of the term, but that?s not the crux of the argument that you are losing.

So we are clear, do you believe that political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.

 

[6thGen]

Alright, Mr Let's-See-The-Evidence, where is your evidence that the Muslim terrorists use the mentally retarded? Surely, you are not saying that one would have to be mentally retarded to fly a jet into the trade towers, or to strap a bomb onto one's own person, are you?

No, but it's easy to argue the mental instability for those on suicide missions. Here's one example.
Sincerely,
Mr. Let's See The Evidence (I'm not into hyphenated names)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/

 

[Smiling JOe]

No, but it's easy to argue the mental instability for those on suicide missions. Here's one example.
Sincerely,
Mr. Let's See The Evidence (I'm not into hyphenated names)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/

That is evidence, but it is of only one person, which we know in your book, doesn't carry much weight. ;-) You mention that they have a "propensity" to use the mentally handicapped people, and the use of one person is quite different from the definition of "propensity."

Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists.

I understand this thought, but it would make more sense to me if these terrorists were terrorizing their gov't which has oppressed them. I don't see the connection as to how their own govt suppressing them would lead to terrorizing another country.