Are all terrorists really Muslims?By Aakar Patel

[Josef K]

That makes sense.

People waging terrorist campaigns for ostensibly religious reasons should be distinguished from other terrorists.

But they both remain terrorists, and the point of the article then becomes apparent - there are more terrorists who are not Muslim, overwhelmingly more, than there are terrorists who are Muslim.

But the former have my sympathy because they fight against injustices meted out to them and they want to right the wrongs of the past done by some oppressive state/central governments. Their fight is localized and will end once they get justice.

The latter fight because they want global superiority and a hegemony over others. Their fight is everywhere. A Chechen who was oppressed by the Russian government, does not mind taking it out on the runners of a marathon in Boston. They do not have my sympathies.

 

[syedali73]

Al-Qaeda/ISIS/TTP all are politically motivated who use the name of a religion to lure people into their ranks and to give or earn legitimacy to their actions. The reason that an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in some 52 countries does not support them albeit of their apparent religious guise is a testament to this fact.

 

[Josef K]

Al-Qaeda/ISIS/TTP all are politically motivated who use the name of a religion to lure people into their ranks and to give or earn legitimacy to their actions. The reason that an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in some 52 countries does not support them albeit of their apparent religious guise is a testament to this fact.

Hence they are identified by the name of the religion they use. LTTE use the name of Tamil nationalism and not that of any religion. Is it that difficult to understand?

 

[Brahma Bull]

ISIS has got nothing to do with Islam
I in ISIS stands for Ice-Cream..
P.S - Read it on a FB page

 

[Sine Nomine]

 

[Joe Shearer]

But the former have my sympathy because they fight against injustices meted out to them and they want to right the wrongs of the past done by some oppressive state/central governments. Their fight is localized and will end once they get justice.

The latter fight because they want global superiority and a hegemony over others. Their fight is everywhere. A Chechen who was oppressed by the Russian government, does not mind taking it out on the runners of a marathon in Boston. They do not have my sympathies.

Which are you referring to as 'the former'? If you are quoting my message, I mentioned those ostensibly using religion as a reason. Your message might then come to mean that the religious terrorists have your sympathy, because they fight...and so on, and the political terrorists fight because they want global superiority and a hegemony over others. It is only your example of the Chechens that seems to indicate that you actually mean things the other way around.

That confusion apart, you are aware that the Maoist creed is to take over the Indian state, abolish representative democracy, and bring in single party rule. Are you sure that you sympathise with them? I believe they are as dangerous as religious terrorists (yes, they exist, but not in the numbers claimed by the right wing).

 

[indianBong]

That makes sense.

People waging terrorist campaigns for ostensibly religious reasons should be distinguished from other terrorists.

But they both remain terrorists, and the point of the article then becomes apparent - there are more terrorists who are not Muslim, overwhelmingly more, than there are terrorists who are Muslim.

well sir you are absolutely right....a terrorist is alwaz a terrorist.... we have 200million muslims...if terrorism would have been exclusive domain of muslims then india would have torn apart again....
but this author is wrong about hindus being top reason of terrorism in india..... its maoist followed by christian groups in north east.... muslim terrorism in confined usually to kashmir.....
author has twisted facts... most probably politically motivated....

 

[Paranoid Android]

@indianBong @Abhijeet Sarkar

It is very clear now.

When a Hindu is a Maoist, he is no longer a Hindu; his acts of terrorism are Maoist acts of terrorism.

When a Muslim is an Al Qaeda supporter, or ISIS, or SIMI, he remains a Muslim; his acts of terrorism are Muslim acts of terrorism.

Very clear.

For instance the suicide bomb attacks or terrorism carried out by Tamils (who were Hindu) in Srilanka or India were done by 'Tamil terrorists' but those done by Al-Qaeda/TTP/ ISIS whatever, were/are the acts of Muslim terrorists.

If someone's mindset is based on communism how could he /she be a Hindu or Muslim!They don't believe in god or in any religion,atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism.On the other side isis,boko haram fight in the name of religion & their main motto is to muslimize everything..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Al-Qaeda/ISIS/TTP all are politically motivated who use the name of a religion to lure people into their ranks and to give or earn legitimacy to their actions. The reason that an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in some 52 countries does not support them albeit of their apparent religious guise is a testament to this fact.

ISIS, for instance, are heavily constituted of the sections of the Iraqi population that were completely set aside by the American administrative agencies soon after the fall of Saddam. Influential Baathist generals and senior military staff from the old Iraqi Army form much of their leadership. Their battles, if you look closely, are waged mainly against the enemies of the old Iraqi state, the Kurds included. Their battles in Syria, which were initially funded by the US, were against the minority central government of the Alawi-ite Syrian leadership. They are a factional party, former 'socialists', who are using religion in a crude, two-dimensional way to seize power. Their crimes are committed in the name of religion, all the more to bring legimitimacy to their actions, a legitimacy which does not exist.

Just one example.

well sir you are absolutely right....a terrorist is alwaz a terrorist.... we have 200million muslims...if terrorism would have been exclusive domain of muslims then india would have torn apart again....
but this author is wrong about hindus being top reason of terrorism in india..... its maoist followed by christian groups in north east.... muslim terrorism in confined usually to kashmir.....
author has twisted facts... most probably politically motivated....

CHRISTIAN groups in the north-east? For instance?

If someone's mindset is based on communism how could he /she be a Hindu or Muslim!They don't believe in god or in any religion,atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism.On the other side isis,boko haram fight in the name of religion & their main motto is to muslimize everything..

Look beneath the surface.

 

[Paranoid Android]

ISIS, for instance, are heavily constituted of the sections of the Iraqi population that were completely set aside by the American administrative agencies soon after the fall of Saddam. Influential Baathist generals and senior military staff from the old Iraqi Army form much of their leadership. Their battles, if you look closely, are waged mainly against the enemies of the old Iraqi state, the Kurds included. Their battles in Syria, which were initially funded by the US, were against the minority central government of the Alawi-ite Syrian leadership. They are a factional party, former 'socialists', who are using religion in a crude, two-dimensional way to seize power. Their crimes are committed in the name of religion, all the more to bring legimitimacy to their actions, a legitimacy which does not exist.

Just one example.



CHRISTIAN groups in the north-east? For instance?



Look beneath the surface.

Yes.Again,Marxist does not promotes Hinduism...They are communists whether what was he before....

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@indianBong @Abhijeet Sarkar

It is very clear now.

When a Hindu is a Maoist, he is no longer a Hindu; his acts of terrorism are Maoist acts of terrorism.

When a Muslim is an Al Qaeda supporter, or ISIS, or SIMI, he remains a Muslim; his acts of terrorism are Muslim acts of terrorism.

Very clear.

Yes it is.

A Maoist kills in the name of the Red ideology.
IS kills in the name of Islam.

If every Hindu, Muslim, etc crime is given a religious color without looking at the underlying motive we can easily brand thefts, suicides, murders as Hindu murder, Muslim theft and so on.

This is especially true when the Maoist ideology itself demands the absolute surrender of faith, rather than to it.

 

[Josef K]

It is only your example of the Chechens that seems to indicate that you actually mean things the other way around..

I won't go into your original statement or its syntax as long as you have understood that correctly. Coming to the other part of your comment:

Are you sure that you sympathise with them?

They want to overthrow the government because they have not got their due in a democracy and they have lost faith in it. My sympathies are with the tribals. Not the ones that grew up in an upper middle class family, went to JNU, thought of himself as some superhero who will liberate the oppressed from the system by waging class warfare. No body likes a cynical hypocrite.

 

[Jaat Rock]

No No No
How many times i have to say that Muslims are the most peaceful peoples in the world...Look at the Middle East, African Countries, Some parts of Europe, China, Pakistan how peaceful they are and in India too...
Remember yesterday's incident of stoning and throwing acid on Hindus in Hanuman Jyanti

 

[SarthakGanguly]

No No No
How many times i have to say that Muslims are the most peaceful peoples in the world...Look at the Middle East, African Countries, Some parts of Europe, China, Pakistan how peaceful they are and in India too...
Remember yesterday's incident of stoning and throwing acid on Hindus in Hanuman Jyanti

There is no problem with the world, it's our fault. It's all our fault.

 

[Soumitra]

@Joe Shearer unfortunatle reality is that the terrorists who are muslims commit terrorism in name of Islam. Other terrorists commit terrorism in name of a political ideology or goal. For example Bodo militants commit terrorism to gain Bodoland.

Both are equally condemable. However Bodo terrorists cant be called as christian terrorists because they dont do it in name of christianity. ISIS is rightly labeled as Islamic terrorist because they are doing in name of Islam

that is why the statement is given that terrorists are muslims