PHILIPPINE troops went on full alert today after the deadly bombing in Indonesia and amid fears of terrorism on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, officials said.

Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Lucero was announcing security measures planned for the September 11 anniversary at a press conference when news of the Indonesian blast spread.

A powerful bomb exploded near the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, killing at least four people and wounding about 100.

"The military is prepared to deter similar attacks nationwide," Lucero said.

About 3000 soldiers in metropolitan Manila were immediately put on red alert – the highest of a three-level system – while commanders of the 120,000-strong military elsewhere were given discretion to raise the troops' status, the military said.






The capital's 114,000-member police force also went on red alert.

National police chief Edgar Aglipay said he deployed additional police to the Australian and US embassies in Manila.

Lieutenant Colonel Lucero said the military had not identified any specific threats, but plainclothes intelligence officers and soldiers would be deployed to guard likely targets, including foreign embassies, shopping malls, hotels and government offices.

The Philippines has been battling a slew of armed groups, including Marxist and Muslim separatist rebels and the al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf extremist group, and is considered a likely terrorist target in South-East Asia.

Western governments periodically warn their citizens to refrain from travelling in certain areas, especially in the country's volatile south, where Muslim guerillas are active.

US officials also have expressed alarm over the reported presence of the regional terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in the southern Philippines, and have deployed troops to help train and arm Filipino soldiers battling the Abu Sayyaf and other insurgents.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...55E1702,00.html

:crawling:

Terrorism: An Introduction

Is terrorism just brutal, unthinking violence?
No. Experts agree that there is almost always a strategy behind terrorist actions. Whether it takes the form of bombings, shootings, hijackings, or assassinations, terrorism is neither random, spontaneous, nor blind; it is a deliberate use of violence against civilians for political or religious ends.

Is there a definition of terrorism?

Ruins of Pan Am 103,
Lockerbie, Scotland, 1988.
(AP Photo/Dave Caulkin )
Even though most people can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
Where does the word "terrorism" come from?
It was coined during France's Reign of Terror in 1793-94. Originally, the leaders of this systematized attempt to weed out "traitors" among the revolutionary ranks praised terror as the best way to defend liberty, but as the French Revolution soured, the word soon took on grim echoes of state violence and guillotines. Today, most terrorists dislike the label, according to Bruce Hoffman of the RAND think tank.

Is terrorism a new phenomenon?

No. The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. For instance, in first-century Palestine, Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators; in seventh-century India, the Thuggee cult would ritually strangle passersby as sacrifices to the Hindu deity Kali; and in the eleventh-century Middle East, the Shiite sect known as the Assassins would eat hashish before murdering civilian foes. Historians can trace recognizably modern forms of terrorism back to such late-nineteenth-century organizations as Narodnaya Volya (“People’s Will”), an anti-tsarist group in Russia. One particularly successful early case of terrorism was the 1914 assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb extremist, an event that helped trigger World War I. Even more familiar forms of terrorism—often custom-made for TV cameras—first appeared on July 22, 1968, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine undertook the first terrorist hijacking of a commercial airplane.

Is terrorism aimed at an audience?
Usually, yes. Terrorist acts are often deliberately spectacular, designed to rattle and influence a wide audience, beyond the victims of the violence itself. The point is to use the psychological impact of violence or of the threat of violence to effect political change. As the terrorism expert Brian Jenkins bluntly put it in 1974, "Terrorism is theatre."

Was September 11 part of an increasingly deadly trend in the evolution of terrorism?

Yes. During the 1990s, there were fewer terrorist attacks, but they tended to kill more people. Experts attribute this trend—fewer attacks, more fatalities—to a rise in religiously motivated terrorism, which lacks some of the restraints of earlier versions of terrorism. They add that heightened vigilance and security has often made the hijackings and kidnappings popularized in the 1960s and 1970s more difficult, driving some groups toward simpler but sometimes deadlier bombing operations.

Did anything hold back terrorists from mass killing in the past?

Yes. Some terrorist groups before the 1990s often were limited by fears that too much violence could backfire. In other words, experts say, terrorist groups wanted to find the proverbial sweet spot: they sought to use enough shocking violence to bring attention to a cause they felt had been neglected, but they did not want to use so much violence that their audiences abroad would become permanently alienated. Nor did nationalist terrorist groups—such as the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Irish Republican Army (IRA)—want to go so far that they dried up support among their own people.

These considerations often affected choices of targets as well as the level of violence. Between 1969 and 1993, for instance, less than a fifth of the IRA’s victims were Protestant civilians, reflecting a deliberate choice to avoid alienating potential Irish supporters. As the terrorism expert Brian Jenkins has put it, terrorists used to want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.

Have terrorists ever used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In 1995, members of Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, released sarin nerve gas into the Tokyo subway, killing 12 and wounding over 3,500—the first recorded use of chemical weapons by terrorists. The first deadly use of biological weapons by terrorists was the late-2001 U.S. mailings of anthrax-laced letters by persons still unknown.

Are religiously motivated terrorists like al-Qaeda less restrained than other terrorists?

Yes, generally speaking. Not only are these terrorists’ goals often vaguer than those of nationalist terrorists—who want, for example, an independent state, a much more concrete goal than Osama bin Laden’s sweeping talk of jihad—but their methods are more lethal. That’s because, experts say, the religious terrorist often sees violence as an end in itself, as a divinely inspired way of serving a higher cause. As RAND’s Hoffman notes, even such earlier archterrorists as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal never “contemplated, much less attempted, the complete destruction of a high-rise office building packed with people.” But for al-Qaeda, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, the Palestinian group Hamas, and other religious terrorist organizations, mass killings are considered not only acceptable but “holy.”

REFERENCE:

http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/introduction.html

Jemaah Islamiyah wounded but still deadly--analysts
July 08, 2005
Updated 05:13pm (Mla time)

Agence France-Presse


KUALA LUMPUR -- Southeast Asia has long braced for a terrorist attack on the scale of the London bombings, and although the region's militants are in retreat and disarray, they remain deadly, analysts said Friday.

Tourist resorts, red-light districts and shopping centers, all teeming with foreign visitors, are considered top targets for the Al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), which masterminded the July 2002 Bali bombings.

Since that atrocity which left 202 people dead, mostly Australian tourists, security crackdowns have decapitated the organization and it has also been fractured by ideological disputes, experts believe.

However, the strikes have continued, including car bombings at the Marriott hotel in Jakarta in 2003, which killed 12 people, and outside the Australian embassy last year in an attack that killed nine.

"JI is still a very capable group, and certainly it is quite active in Southeast Asia," said Rohan Gunaratna, head of the Singapore-based International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research.

"Although JI has suffered very significantly it is still capable of attacking, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines, with operations on the scale of the Marriott and Australian High Commission bombings," he said.

Jane's Intelligence Review's Asia correspondent Anthony Davis said the concerted efforts by Asia and foreign security services, which has seen some 400 alleged JI operatives arrested across the region, have struck a heavy blow.

"They are an organization in disarray, they are being actively hunted by the Indonesian police, they have internal ideological problems," he said.

"The level of intelligence alertness in the rest of the region, particularly in a country like Thailand which has every reason to fear the linking-up of JI and indigenous Muslim militants... is such as to preclude any such link-ups."

Abdul Razak Baginda, executive director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Center, agreed that the region is unlikely to face a coordinated assault like the London bombing which saw four synchronized blasts within an hour.

"I think their strategy is for piecemeal, small attacks like in Indonesia rather than a coordinated attack like the one in London... I don't think they have the capability," he said.

But he warned that although JI has suffered setbacks, it posed a new threat by resurfacing as a many-headed collection of sleeper cells linked only by a common ideology -- much in the same way that Al-Qaeda affiliates work.

"What we're going to see is the emergence of different individuals and different groups that may have a JI connection. Politicians refer to JI as if it's a coherent group that exists, but it's quite different," he said.

"They are more dispersed in nature. There is no headquarters, there is no forward base," he said.

Like the group, which carried out the London attack, after British security authorities foiled several large-scale plots, they would be looking for an opportunity to strike, he said.

"They are lying low in order to wait for the right time, and this is not the right time because everyone is on guard at the moment," he said.

Tony Tan, Singapore's Coordinating Minister for Security and Defense said Friday that even though their chain of command had been crippled, the JI threat remained very real.

"The terrorists are regrouping in the countries around us, they will continue to try. One of these days despite all the measures we have taken they may succeed and we must be ready to deal with the consequences," he said.

"While the coordination may not be as tight as before, the JI has changed now into a number of disparate groups, each of them working on their own but linked by a common cause," he said.

Tan said the militants were still intent on carrying out their goal of toppling regional governments and establishing an Islamic caliphate stretching across Southeast Asia and into Australia.

"The fact that the terrorists have been able to carry out such a coordinated and extensive series of attacks in London must make all of us realize that we cannot be complacent."

http://news.inq7.net/express/html_output/2...-42797.xml.html

RP, Australia sign pact
on terror financing
By Agence France-Presse

SYDNEY--Australia announced Tuesday that it had agreed to exchange financial intelligence with the Philippines under a pact aimed at preventing terrorist groups moving money around the world.

Justice and Customs Minister Chris Ellison said the two countries would sign a memorandum of understanding on the issue later Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering in the northern Australian town of Cairns.

The Philippines was removed from an international list of non-cooperative countries earlier this year after introducing laws to counter money laundering and terrorist financing, Ellison said in a statement.

"The Philippines has established an effective financial intelligence unit meeting strict operational standards and last week they gained membership to the international Egmont group of financial intelligence units.

"The signing of this memorandum of understanding will now enable the formal exchange of vital financial intelligence between Australia and the Philippines, strengthening the war on money laundering and terrorism financing in this region," Ellison said.

Australia has signed similar agreements with 41 other countries across Southeast Asia, the Pacific, South America, Europe and North America.

public awareness lang talaga....

...and be not afraid! :nono:

http://www.werenotafraid.com/

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The survey by the Pew Research Center examined public opinion in six predominantly Muslim nations: Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon. It also examined views in nine North American and European countries as well as in India and China. In all, more than 17,000 people were questioned either by telephone of face-to-face.

"There's declining support for terrorism in the Muslim countries and support for Osama bin Laden is declining. There's also less support for suicide bombings," said Pew Center director Andrew Kohut.

"This is good news, but still there are substantial numbers who support bin Laden in some of these countries," he told a news conference.

In Morocco, 26 percent of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down from 49 percent in a similar poll two years ago.

In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003.

In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.

However, in Jordan, confidence in bin Laden, who took responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and many other attacks, rose to 60 percent from 55 percent. In Pakistan, it went to 51 percent from 45 percent.

A similar picture emerged when respondents were asked whether suicide bombings were justifiable. In Morocco, 13 percent said they often or sometimes could be justified, down from 40 percent in 2004.

MORE JORDANIANS SUPPORT BOMBINGS

In Indonesia, 15 percent expressed that view, down from 27 percent in the summer of 2002. Support for suicide bombings also fell in Pakistan and dropped dramatically in Lebanon. However, support rose in Jordan, to 57 percent from 43 percent in 2002.

Kohut noted there had been devastating attacks on civilians in Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey in recent years and a rash of assassinations and bombings recently in Lebanon.

Both in western countries and the Muslim world, respondents expressed fears about Islamic extremism.

Seventy-three percent in Morocco and 52 percent in Pakistan saw Islamic extremism as a threat to their country. The figure was 84 percent in Russia, 78 percent in Germany, and an identical 70 percent in Britain and the United States. The poll was taken well before last week's bombings in London.

When asked what caused Islamic extremism, 40 percent in Lebanon and 38 percent in Jordan blamed U.S. policies and influence; in Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, respondents were more likely to blame poverty, unemployment or poor education.

Despite terrorism fears, majorities in Britain, the United States, France, Canada and Russia and pluralities in Spain and Poland expressed favorable views about Muslims.

But in Germany and the Netherlands, opinion swung to an unfavorable view. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed in the Netherlands expressed an unfavorable view of Muslims. In Germany, 47 percent were unfavorable, compared with 40 percent who expressed favorable views.

Anti-Jewish sentiment was overwhelming in the Muslim countries. In Lebanon, 100 percent of Muslims and 99 percent of Christians said they had a very unfavorable view of Jews, while 99 percent of Jordanians also viewed Jews very unfavorably.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/wl_nm/...ims_binladen_dc

from a cnn special report....

"the way to tackle terrorism is to employ similar tactics used by american police against organized criminal gangs"

A Moslem tells in his simple way what Allah says about terrorism.


===========================================

khas ismael <alnisa_habibbi@yahoo.com> wrote:

Koran saying: "Whoever kills a human being ... then it is as though he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a human life it is as though he had saved all mankind."

"Islam's position is clear and unequivocal: murder of one soul is the murder of the whole of humanity; he who shows no respect for human life is an enemy of humanity.

Even in times of war, Islam has rules - that is to spare the children, women and old or anyone not involve in that war. in fact during time of war, respect to the nature should also be observed. muslims also should be in the defensive party.

May the Almighty Allah bless us all.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FilipinoAegis/message/1285

From: Flipzi <getflipzi@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: The Battle within getflipzi


"...It is not enough to simply condemn them; if the world is to win a war against terrorists it must also understand them...."

I agree.

Moreover, the Moslem people who understands what Islam is really about MUST DO THEIR PART in bringing back to Allah's light those who have gone astray or got confused and unfortunately ended up joining the wrong bands and were made to believe that terrorism is Allah's will.

The sad thing here is that the Islamic priests and the Moslem groups are not doing much to erase the smudge of terrorism on Islam's reputation.

Non-Moslems can indeed win this war by understanding what makes the Moslem people resort to terrorism and finding the appropriate solutions to solve this problem.

Nonetheless, if the Islamic priests and the Moslem people themselves wont help in this endeavor, then more innocent lives will perish in this conflict and more Moslem community will suffer the repercussions.

Worse, the war will drag on much longer as a result of the lack of cooperation from all parties concerned.

If more people will join hands this war will end much sooner.


Megawati Mustafa <megawati@undp.org> wrote:
The Battle Within Islam
Posted by site admin on July 12th, 2005

According to Greek legend, Sisyphus was punished by having to push a boulder
to the top of a mountain in Hades.

Upon reaching the summit, the boulder would fall to the base and he would
begin again. It was a punishment that continued for eternity.

Muslims share something of Sisyphus' frustrations.

It seems that no sooner have community relations returned to a sense of
normality, than something happens - a Bali, Beslan and now London that sends
the figurative boulder rolling back down the hill.

Muslims are today hostage not only to the public pronouncements of other
Muslims, but to the conduct of their co-religionists throughout the world;
whether it is the exponents of female genital mutilation in Africa or the
child-killers of Beslan.

Unlike other religions, Islam lacks a church to offer the definitive view on
such matters. As such, it falls on every Muslim to defend and clarify.

Although the perpetrators are yet to be identified, it is largely assumed
that the London bombings were carried out by so-called Muslims. For all our
assurances that Islam means peace, it is increasingly obvious that a
minority of Muslims seek war.With each new terror attack or kidnapping,
Muslims who maintain otherwise look increasingly like the emperor with no
clothes.

The fact is that there is a minority of Muslims who hold extreme ideas, and
a minority may matriculate to terror.

Ironically, the intellectual epicentre for much of this has been the United
Kingdom.

Over the years, the UK has provided sanctuary to countless extremists. Often convicted or wanted for trial in their own countries, these people have used
London as a base to incite civil strife in Muslim societies from afar. It
would be a bitter irony if it emerged that the London bombings were a
by-product of these same poisonous rantings.

Yet, ultimately, the painful lesson of London is that fighting terrorism
using conventional methods and relying on intelligence gathering are not
enough to secure one's society from attack. It is not enough to simply
condemn them; if the world is to win a war against terrorists it must also
understand them.

There are 1400 years of scholarly consensus that Islamic law prohibits the
murder of civilians, non-combatants, women, children and the elderly. There'
s a litany of evidence in the form of verses of the Koran and statements
from the Prophet that establish this as an inviolable tenet of our faith.
Muslims who then commit terrorism can only be blinded by ignorance or a
wilful indifference to religious teachings.

The war on terror is ultimately a war against ignorance and misguidance. It
is therefore a war that the West cannot win, as the only people able to
confront the ideological underpinnings of Muslim terrorism are other
Muslims.

And they have been. Long before George W. Bush declared war on terror, one
of the leading figures of fundamentalist Islam and late mufti of Saudi
Arabia, Sheik Ibn Baz, declared it compulsory for Muslims to exert
themselves as much as possible in ending this evil. This is by no means an
exceptional fatwa, or religious edict.

The frequent demands that Muslims speak out seem oblivious to the fact that
Muslims have been speaking out against extremism for as long as extremism
has existed. But this dialogue takes place in mosques and in Islamic
literature, not on talk shows or talkback radio.

Yet, the recent bombings in London have, once again, brought anxieties to
the fore about the loyalty of Western Muslims. There is the usual talk about
Muslim fifth columns and the usual questions about the extent to which these
terrorist attacks are rooted in Islam.

Those concerned with such questions should consider that Muslims have
themselves long been victims of terrorists: in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Algeria, Tanzania, New York and now London. Edgware Rd is the heart of
London's Arab community, and the Aldgate bomb exploded among a huge
Bangladeshi population and close to the East London mosque. If the
perpetrators were indeed Muslims, then their indifference to the lives of
their co-religionists provided a more powerful indictment of their motives
and claims to religious legitimacy than anything that one could write.

This was originally published in the Herald Sun, July 12th, 2005

====================================================

The war on terror is ultimately a war against ignorance and misguidance. It
is therefore a war that the West cannot win, as the only people able to
confront the ideological underpinnings of Muslim terrorism are other
Muslims.

:agree:

One of the ways to curb terrorism is to delete the subject in Islamic schools that included it in their medium, as what those London bombers learned in Pakistan during their brief attendance in radical Islamic schools.

Let me share this message from a Moslem friend.

I am so glad that those Moslems who know what Islam is really about are now doing their part in winning back to Allah's light their brothers who have gone astray.


===================================================

From: Megawati Mustafa <megawati@undp.org>
Date: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:50 pm
Subject: Only Love Can Defeat Terrorism
To: Alfred Alexander Marasigan <getflipzi@yahoo.com> megawati@undp.org


Forwarded by religion-discussing group


BRITAIN'S "SEPTEMBER 11" - BY HARUN YAHYA

Thursday, July 7, 2005, will be remembered all over the world as the date when a series of bomb attacks took place in the British capital, London. These barbaric attacks left behind them dozens of dead and hundreds of injured, and went down in history as causing terrible material and psychological damage.

The events in London were referred to as "Islamic terror," in a manner that deeply wounds the entire Islamic world. However, shedding the blood of innocent people, including women and children, by the use of such ruthless methods, cannot be accounted for in any religious terms. Even the term "Islamic terror" creates severe distress in the hearts of sincere believers, and lays blame on a community numbering more than 1 billion.

The events have absolutely nothing to do with the true Islam commanded by God in the Qur'an. There is no room for the concept of terror in true Islam. Violence is not permitted in any of the divine religions. When we look at the Qur'an, the sole source of Islam, and at the practices of all Muslim rulers throughout the history of the world, beginning with our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace), we can see the truth of this in all clarity.

Terrorism is a terrible plague that has infected the world for hundreds of years. Even though actions may differ from country to country, all terrorist organizations aim at defenseless civilians and send their messages by way of these people.

In the terrorist attack in Oklahoma in the USA 167 people were savagely slaughtered, 19 of them children.

A fanatical Jew who opened a hail of fire on Muslims praying in a mosque in Palestine caused the deaths of 29 people. Thousands of people have lost their lives in attacks against Muslims in India over the years.
Terrorist attacks both great and small have for years been perpetrated in France, Spain, the Philippines, Japan and Ireland.

One could go on. However, the entire world came face to face with terror in 2001. In the wake of the attacks against two major cities in the USA, which led to the deaths, and injuries of thousands of people, the concept of "terrorism" began to be debated once again. That was because that attack had been carried out at an unexpected time, against a country regarded as the world's only superpower, and in a totally unforeseen manner. The attack created an air of fear and panic all over the world, especially in America.

Following the attacks, the USA embarked on a major fight against terror. Many countries have lined up alongside America in this struggle, and lent their support to it. The series of bombings in Istanbul, just when it was thought that the forces of terror had been brought under control, again reminded people of terrorism's dark face: first synagogues, then the British Consulate, then the HSBC General Directorate building.

The Saturday prayer, which had been performed for centuries, was interrupted by the bombs exploded on November 15th. Twenty-four people were killed in the explosions at the Neva Shalom synagogue at Beyoglu Kuledibi and the Beth Israel synagogue at Sisli, and 300 were injured. Dozens of more people lost their lives in the explosions at the British Consulate and the HSBC building, and hundreds were injured. Images similar to those, which followed the September 11 attacks, began appearing on our television screens. Ruined buildings, people fleeing in panic, burned out busses, corpses lying in the streets.

Following the events in Istanbul, terror began to strike at Europe. The first target was Spain, which played host to Muslims for hundreds of years. The bombs that exploded in three large train stations in Madrid caused the deaths of 199 people, and another 1,247 people to be injured. What remained after this terrorist act was dead bodies, the injured, and fear, anger and hatred that left all the Muslims of Europe under an accusation...

And now the bombs that exploded in the London Underground and busses, both means of public transport, a city full of the dead and injured…The point we wish to emphasize in this article is that Islam opposes terror attacks and the killing of the innocent. All forms of terrorist attack are roundly condemned in Islam. According to the Qur'an, it is a great sin to kill an innocent person, and anyone who does so will suffer great torment in the Hereafter:

If someone kills another person-unless it is in retaliation for someone else or for causing corruption in the earth-it is as if he had murdered all mankind. And if anyone gives life to another person, it is as if he had given life to all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but even after that, many of them committed outrages in the earth. (Qur'an, 5:32)

This verse equals the killing of one innocent to slaughtering all of humanity. Another verse expresses the importance of human life:

Those who do not appeal to any other deity besides God [alone]; nor kill any soul whom God has forbidden [them to] except with the right to do so; nor fornicate. Anyone who does so will incur a penalty. (Qur'an, 25:68)

Any Muslim who believes in God with a sincere heart, who scrupulously abides by His verses and fears suffering in the Hereafter, will avoid harming even one other person. He knows that the Lord of Infinite Justice will suitably reward him for all his deeds. In one of the hadith, our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) listed the kinds of people who are not pleasing to God:

"Those who act cruelly and unjustly in the sacred lands, those who yearn for the ways of the ignorant, and those who wrongly shed human blood." (Sahih Bukhari Hadith)

Terror Will Disappear When People Come to Live by the Moral Values of Islam.

In the Qur'an (32:9), God reveals that He has breathed His Spirit into man, His creation, and that man is His representative on Earth (Qur'an, 6:165). One of the most important differences between man and the animals is that man was created with both earthly desires and with a conscience. Every person possesses desires that incite him to evil, along with a conscience that inspires him to avoid it. Alongside such pleasing moral attributes inspired by that conscience-love, sacrifice, compassion, humility, affection, honesty, loyalty and kindness-he also possesses destructive and undesirable tendencies, stemming from his earthly desires. Thanks to his conscience, however, the believer can distinguish between right and wrong and opt for what is morally right. Strong belief in and fear of God, faith in the Hereafter, powerful fear of the endless torments of Hell and a yearning for Paradise all keep the temptations of his earthly desires at bay. Therefore, he always behaves well towards people, is forgiving, responds to wickedness with good, assists those in need, and shows compassion, love, affection and tolerance.

Terrorists, on the other hand, listen to their earthly desire for violence instead of their consciences, and can easily turn to all forms of wickedness. They become loveless, aggressive people who easily hurt others without the slightest pang of conscience. Having no fear of God, they do not practice the morality of religion. Nothing can stop them from committing crimes.

In restraining its citizens, society's prevailing rules can go only so far. Thanks to its law enforcement units, the state may be able to partially protect streets and public spaces, and-thanks to a powerful system of justice-may be able to take necessary means to ensure public order and ensure that the crime rate drops. But since it's impossible to keep watch on every individual, 24 hours a day, it's essential that people act by their conscience. Someone who doesn't heed the voice of his conscience can easily turn to crime when on his own, or surrounded by people of like mind. That being the case, a model of society emerges which is composed of individuals who lie when necessary, have no hesitation about making unjust profits, and feel no unease about oppressing the weak. It is clear that physical precautions and measures will bear no fruit in a society which has no fear of God and which has lost its spiritual values. Religious moral values, on the other hand, command a person to refrain from evil, even if he is all-alone, even if nobody will punish him for his evil deeds. It is evident that a person who knows that he will be called to account in the presence of God for his every deed, his every decision and his every word, and that he will be suitably rewarded for these in the eternal life of the Hereafter, will scrupulously avoid committing evil.

Terrorist organizations can't possibly have any place in a society whose people avoid evil of their own free will. Where religion's morality prevails, problems that give rise to organizations supporting the use of violence will disappear naturally. If the whole society possesses superior virtues like honesty, sacrifice, love and justice, there can be no place for such things as poverty, unequal distribution of income, injustice, the oppression of the weak, or limitations on freedoms. On the contrary, a social order will emerge that meets the wants of the needy; where the wealthy protect the poor and the strong, the weak; where everyone can enjoy the very best health care, education, and transport systems. There, tolerance and understanding will dominate the relationships between different ethnic groups, religions and cultures.

For these reasons, proper morality is the key to solving so many social problems. The source of that key, in turn, is the Qur'an, which God has revealed as a guide for mankind.

It must not be forgotten that unless necessary measures are taken, unless deep-rooted solutions are brought in, the 21st century will continue to be a time of terror and violence, just as the 20th was before it. The homes of innocent people will be bombed, and women and children will be slaughtered. The intellectual fight against terrorism, therefore, must be started with great urgency, to include very great numbers of people. This fight will be fought on the level of ideas-between people who believe in God, who are loving, forgiving, compassionate and in full possession of their conscience; and those terrorists who draw their strength from ignorance and violence. In one verse, our Lord reveals, "Why were there not people with good sense among the generations of those who came before you, who forbade corruption in the earth…" (Qur'an, 11:116). Believers should possess the good sense that God describes in the verses. While terrorists hope to achieve their aims by violence, believers know that true success can be achieved only by clinging tightly to the religion of God, and acting accordingly. Jews, Christians, and Muslims will join together in that struggle, in a spirit of respect for all beliefs and ideas and, by the will of God, enjoy definitive success. This is God's promise to all His believing servants, which will definitely come true.

At this point, a great responsibility falls on all true believers, no matter what their religion. Jews must not ignore Old Testament statements calling mankind to peace and tolerance, and they must call on all other Jews to oppose terrorism. So should Christians call on all other Christians, taking as their guide the morality most pleasing to God. One should not forget that terrorism stems from wrong ideas and the basic struggle against terrorism should be on the level of ideas. Believers must explain that these ideas are wrong, and that no idea can prevail by means of violence, oppression and cruelty; and despotism can never bring about beauty.

Terrorist ideology is built on sand. Its foundations can easily be swept away by mobilizing a proper education campaign. Sincere believers in all parts of the world can help end the ignorance that breeds terrorism by searching for solutions, writing books and articles, promoting educational activities and disseminating their own cultural heritage. The prevalence of tolerance, peace and security on the Earth, as commanded by God, will make terrorism disappear into the pages of history forever. Adopting a defeatist, pessimistic attitude in the face of terror is unacceptable. Our hope is that this suffering will not be repeated, and that all measures will be adopted to that end.

May God have mercy on those who died in those hateful attacks, and may He heal the injured. Our sincere condolences to all mankind. (For detailed information, please see Islam Denounces Terrorism and Only Love Can Defeat Terrorism by Harun Yahya)


www.harunyahya.org

ABDUL WAHID OSMAN BELAL

The madrasas or even some Moslem religious leaders who teach extremism are one of those who are aggravating the problem here. Instead of fostering peace and cooperation with non-Moslems, they make it appear as if the Moslem people are being oppressed and that they are helpless, even if they are not. This is what makes their followers embrace the concept of terrorism.

The Moslems have a lot of ways to address their grievance to the proper forum and to those who can make the appropriate decisions or solutions.

The only problem is that those who should mediate between the terrorists and the world community aren't doing their responsibility.

The terrorirsts and the rest of the Moslem people should look into why their voices arent reaching those who could have prevented the desperate and misguided Moslems from murdering innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the war.


MORE:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FilipinoAegis/message/1297

MORE AND MORE MOSLEMS ARE REALIZING THE SOLUTION TO THE ONSLAUGHT OF TERRORISM.

:armysmile:

=====================================================

From: "Khalid Bin Umar" <khalidkoraivi@yahoo.com>

ISLAM & ITS VIEW ON TERRORISM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the wake of the recent bomb blasts in London ,I felt it necessary to forward the following to all of you - Khalid Bin Umar__________

In the course of our presentations and educational programs, we are frequently asked questions about Islam and its view on terrorism. Here are some of the most common questions and their answers:


1) What is the Islamic stand on terrorist attacks, such as those that took place in Madrid on March 11, 2004, NY on September 11, 2001, and repeated "suicide bombings" in Israel?

Terrorism is highly condemned in Islam. Terrorism, defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes directly contradicts Islamic rules which prohibit targeting civilians, even in war. In Islamic law, fighting is to be between armies (combatants), not involving non-combatants, or even infrastructure that affects the lives of non-combatants, such as food sources, water, hospitals, roads, bridges, and other necessities of a civilian population. In fact, "haraba", a Qur'anic term defined as "sowing corruption and chaos on earth", is considered one of the most grievous crimes, subject to severe punishment.

2) Is there anything in the Quran, which encourages the terrorists?

Absolutely nothing in the Quran encourages terrorism. On the contrary, the Quran (Islamic Scripture which Muslims believe is the unchanged word of God) and hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings and traditions as recorded by his companions), which are the two primary sources of Islamic law places supremacy on the sacredness of life, security, and peace. Terrorists who base their actions on Islamic law misappropriate Islam, as terrorist anti-abortionists, white supremacists, and certain militia groups misappropriate Christianity.

3) Is there anything in Islam that leads to suicide bombings or terrorism?

Nothing in Islam leads to terrorism or suicide bombings, nor has it ever part of the ethos of Islam's 1400 years of history and traditions. This is a modern day aberration among a few extremists who have taken terrorism as a means for fighting personal wars. Suicide is strongly prohibited in Islam because no one has the right to take away the life that God has given, except God Himself. Committing terrorist acts, which kill innocent civilians, is also prohibited, even during war, especially against women, children, old people, and religious people such as monks and nuns. Even the cutting down of trees, killing animals, and destroying infrastructure are forbidden. In Islam, one can only fight a "just war", which is fought in self-defense, not as an act of aggression and is to be between two groups of military personnel, not with civilians.

4) Where do Muslim extremists get their textual justifications?

Some of the Qur'anic verses which lay out the purpose and nature of war include the following:

To stop oppression: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight, because they are oppressed. Verily, God is Capable of aiding them. They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of what is just, for no other reason than that they say, "Our Lord is God." Had God not restrained one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques wherein God's name if oft-mentioned would have been destroyed. God will certainly aid those who aid His cause. (Qur'an, Chapter 22:39-40). Notice the mention of all houses of worship.

In self-defense: "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits by aggressing; surely God does not love transgressors." (Qur'an, Chapter 2:190.) Notice that permission is given to fight in self-defense, but not to transgress.

Peace is a desired state: "If they incline toward peace, then seek you peace also. And place your trust in God, for God hears and knows all things." (Qur'an, Chapter 8:61).

Muslim extremists get their textual interpretations by taking verses in the Qur'an out of their social-historical context, not considering the time, place, and specific circumstances in which these verses were revealed. The commonly quoted verse that follows must be understood in its proper context, namely during the struggle of the early Muslims against the specific group of Makkans who fought, persecuted and killed them first in Makkah, and then after they established a state in Medina, where early Muslims fought back for the first time. These verses can neither be used to justify killing non-Muslims, nor targeting innocent civilians.

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If any among them asks for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God. Then escort him to his place of security. This is because they are without knowledge."

*Note that even in this social-historical context, not only were the perpetrators given a chance to repent, but that if they sought asylum, it must be granted.

5) What is Jihad?

"Jihad" is often mistranslated as "holy war", a word that does not exist in Arabic. "Jihad" literally means "striving". The greater jihad is described as the internal struggle to avoid negative actions and cultivate good character. The lesser jihad is described as the external striving for justice, in self defense or against oppression, which is a basic human right shared by all people. One can do this in one's heart, with one's tongue or pen, and if these are ineffective, by physically trying to change an oppressive situation, either in self-defense or to defend others against aggression (like the Revolutionary War by the founding fathers against the oppressive policies of the British; or World War II against the aggression of Hitler.)

It is this last type of jihad that Muslim extremists believe they are fighting, which the media mis-translates as "holy war".

6) Who can declare "Jihad"? Can Osama bin Laden declare "Jihad"?

Islam places a great emphasis on order in its political philosophy. Anarchy and arbitrary acts are greatly condemned. Basic principles relating to war are buttressed by these twin considerations. Islam teaches in the Quran: "O You who believe, Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority amongst you," (4:59). Quranic commentators mention that those in authority amongst you means legitimate political authorities and scholars. These are the people who can rightfully declare war. Firstly, legitimate political authorities can make such a call. Secondly, in their absence, those scholars who are universally recognized by the Muslims for their scholarship and piety. As Osama bin Laden is neither a scholar nor a government leader, he lacks the authority to call for war.

7) Do Muslims, particularly those in America, support Osama bin Laden?

The vast majority of Muslims do not support Osama bin Laden and in fact Muslims here and around the world do not know any more about Osama bin Laden than Americans of other faiths. A few Muslim groups overseas support him because they see him as standing up to America, which they regard as a superpower that is biased against Palestinians, and is harming Muslims in Iraq and other countries.

8) What does Al-Qaeda specifically want in these terrorist attacks?

No one knows for sure what motivates terrorists to do such evil acts. In dealing with the motivations of the perpetrators, we must remember that in the case of the attack on September 11th, they left no statement at all of their aims or purposes nor has any group taken responsibility. There may be unknown contexts. The motivation may have nothing at all to do with supposed religious commitments. Obviously, their intent was to kill many people and disrupt life and human society. According to media reports, in the Madrid bombings, their aim was to punish Spain for its alliance with America in the war in Iraq.

9) Does Islam teach hatred for non-Muslims?

Since Islam considers the diversity of people and nature as God's creation, respect for diversity is commanded. Especially noted in the Quran are "People of the Book", namely Jews and Christians, who were always given a special place in Muslim society. Muslims are commanded to safeguard their right to worship and their places of worship, a command that has been historically followed, as is evidenced by the existence of old churches and synagogues throughout the Muslim world in places like Turkey, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Bosnia. Contrary to the common stereotype, Islam was not "spread by the sword", nor people forced to convert, a fact again born out by the existence of non-Muslim populations throughout the Muslim world. This same respect and tolerance was extended to people of other faiths.

As Bernard Lewis states in his book, What Went Wrong, "Surely, the Ottomans did not offer equal rights to their subjects, a meaningless anachronism in the context of that time and place. They did however offer a degree of tolerance without precedent or parallel in Christian Europe. Each religious community - the Ottoman term was millet - was allowed the free practice of its religion. More remarkably, they had their own communal organizations, subject to the authority of their own religious chiefs, controlling their own education and social life, and enforcing their own laws, to the extent that they did not conflict with the basic laws of the Empire. While ultimate power - political and military - remained in Muslim hands, non-Muslims controlled much of the economy, and were even able to play a part of some importance in the political process."

10) Does the Quran order the subjugation of all non-Muslims?

According to Islamic teachings, the Quran is a revelation from God, which served as the basis for the formation of a sophisticated civilization. Like all other civilizations, Islamic civilization has rules, which govern the interaction of the Islamic polity with other nations and identity groups. Within the Muslim state, non-Muslims are free to continue the practice of their religion. Their forceful conversion is strictly forbidden. Islam teaches in the Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in [accepting] religion!" (2:256). Similarly, the Quran presents a set of teachings, which serve as the basis for a developed system of international relations. For example, Islam teaches in the Quran: "if your enemy inclines towards peace, then reciprocate, and trust in God," (8:61). Hence, we find in the Quran the basis for peaceful relations with non-Muslim nations, including truces, trade, educational exchanges, and other facets of normal life.

11) Are Martyrs guaranteed 70 virgins in Heaven?

This is not an authenticate Prophetic Tradition (Hadith). However, in Islam martyrs are promised a great reward from God, just as war heroes are honored in many societies. However, a Muslim who dies commandeering a plane-load of civilians into a building full of civilians, or blowing up innocent people on trains or buses, jeopardizing the safety and security of Muslims throughout the world, and opening the way for antagonistic forces to slander, denigrate, and vilify Islam cannot be considered a martyr. Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs.

12) Should I be afraid of anyone who is Muslim or from the Middle East?

Just as you should not stereotype, or make assumptions about an entire group of people based on their background, race, or religion, it is wrong to think of all people from the Middle East and those who are Muslim as being terrorists just because a few of them commit terrorism. One-fifth to one-fourth of the world's population is Muslim, but only a handful of criminals commit these deeds. This could be compared to asking if we should be afraid of all white young males because Timothy McVeigh was white, or afraid of all Christians because extremist anti-abortionists are Christian, or Irish people because of terror in Ireland. It is important to remember that there are good and bad people in all countries, races and religions.


Copyright Islamic Networks Group (ING.ORG) 2004. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.ing.org/media_releases/default.asp?num=17

I've worked in Saudi Arabia and in the company of Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Syrians, Ethiopian, Eritrians, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Yemenis, Qataris, Emirates, Omanis, Bahrainis and other Moslems and all are saying the same thing. The only subject you don't talked about them is Israel.

Just wondering why is it that conflicts and wars are happening in places where there are Moslems like here in the south and recently now Thailand. :dontgetit:

Al Qaeda has tried to expand its operations to overwhelm world peace and force nations to give in to what they want them to do.

One of which is the complete pullout of US troops in Iraq.

The sad thing here is that they are fooling their own Moslem brothers, who do not understand well what Islam is all about, into believing that terrorism is justified and killing civilians as well is justified since they are trying to dislodge the US, which they see as their aggressor and invader, out of Iraq.

Dislodging the US from Iraq maybe just but the killing of innocent civilians is not.

The question is, will the majority of Iraqis really benefit from what the US or the United Nations is doing in the long run?

Let's not forget that Saddam led the Iraqi people to this misery when he occupied Kuwait, which is a Moslem country aslo.

Who freed the Kuwaiti Moslems? Was it not the US also?

The US just tried to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's selfish ambition of disturbing world peace.

The US and the UN is now trying to help the Iraqi people build a new govt for them. A govt that will respect world order and peace.

Is Al Qaeda really for the Moslem people?

Who are being targetted in Iraq these days?

The US soldiers alone or the Iraqi govt and its own people already?

Al Qaeda is now allowing the killing of its own people.

So, is Osama Bin Laden a true fighter for the majority of of the Iraqi people or a mere rebel leader now?

BTW, i would suggest that the US leaves Iraq as soon as possible.

Nonetheless, they must ensure first, before they leave, that the current Iraqi govt will not be overwhelmed by these attacks.

The UN and not the US should be the one showing control here to erase the thought that the US is trying to control Iraq.

It will be best to allow the Iraqi people themselves direct how their country must move on so that they will feel that they have really regained their own freedom.

If the US will hold on, the terrorists will be enticed to keep on hurting people.

That in particular?

Read this first (taken from the article above):

9) Does Islam teach hatred for non-Muslims?

Since Islam considers the diversity of people and nature as God's creation, respect for diversity is commanded. Especially noted in the Quran are "People of the Book", namely Jews and Christians, who were always given a special place in Muslim society. Muslims are commanded to safeguard their right to worship and their places of worship, a command that has been historically followed, as is evidenced by the existence of old churches and synagogues throughout the Muslim world in places like Turkey, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Bosnia. Contrary to the common stereotype, Islam was not "spread by the sword", nor people forced to convert, a fact again born out by the existence of non-Muslim populations throughout the Muslim world. This same respect and tolerance was extended to people of other faiths.

10) Does the Quran order the subjugation of all non-Muslims?

According to Islamic teachings, the Quran is a revelation from God, which served as the basis for the formation of a sophisticated civilization. Like all other civilizations, Islamic civilization has rules, which govern the interaction of the Islamic polity with other nations and identity groups. Within the Muslim state, non-Muslims are free to continue the practice of their religion. Their forceful conversion is strictly forbidden. Islam teaches in the Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in [accepting] religion!" (2:256). Similarly, the Quran presents a set of teachings, which serve as the basis for a developed system of international relations. For example, Islam teaches in the Quran: "if your enemy inclines towards peace, then reciprocate, and trust in God," (8:61). Hence, we find in the Quran the basis for peaceful relations with non-Muslim nations, including truces, trade, educational exchanges, and other facets of normal life.

So why does it happen in the south?

The culprit points to the assortment of keeping their "ancestral lands", the protection of the significance of being a datu or a sultan, and the hunger for power to rule over Mindanao.

There are of course cases of abuse committed by politicians and even soldiers. The worst of these is "land grabbing".

But why do the MILF gained so many members?

That's because the leaders used legitimate grievances to win their sympathy.

What is that? It's POVERTY. :exactly:

But hey, is Luzon so rich? Are the Visayan islands that rich? Even in Manila you'll see that poverty does not spare anyone.

With that of the ASG, it's more of the money they earn from it! :exactly:

Their use of Islam was just meant to entice members.

And these members are IGNORANT OF WHAT ISLAM IS ALL ABOUT.

The bottomline, there are two things why terrorism is gaining ground.

One is POVERTY and the other is IGNORANCE of what Islam is all about!

Nations should focus of those two factors to prevent the Moslem people from being manipulated and fooled into being used as tools for terrorism.

Check this thread.


....... THEY JUST HATE US, PERIOD.

islam is susceptible to corrupt teachings because they have no singular head (like the pope for roman catholics) who can categorically declare that kidnappings and the killing of innocent civilians are against religious teachings.....

islam is fragmented, and its leaders vie for control amongst themselves....

islamic moderates are also afraid to speak and act against their more radical brothers for fear of being branded as "pro-bush"...

there is more conflict in islam-dominated areas because there are more poor moslems than poor christians, which means more desperate people willing to do anything to save themselves from poverty, including joining a terrorism outfit which promises money and salvation.....

I've been saying this many times that the teaching of Islam consider non-muslims as infidels or mortal enemies, and killing them can be a great credit for them when the ascended into the other world which they called it "paradise".

For us to get rid of this fanatical horror, is to stay away from commuinities where these pests thrive.

:agree:

The Moslem people do need a leader.

So that fewer Moslems will end up being manipulated into joining terrorist groups.

Again, that's what the manipulators try to inculcate into the minds of their ignorant brothers.

What Islam says about non-Moslems?

UN seeks definition of terrorism

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has urged world leaders to agree on a universal definition of terrorism.

The bomb attacks in London and Egypt underscored the need for a definition with "moral clarity" and a UN convention against terrorism, he said.

A UN treaty has been stalled for years over the definition of a terrorist.

A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act.


Terrorism... constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security

UN terrorism proposals

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance," it adds.

Mr Annan wants the proposed UN terrorism convention to be agreed on by world leaders in time for a UN world summit in September.

"A simple, clear statement bringing in moral clarity that maiming and killing of civilians is unacceptable regardless of one's cause I think will satisfy all of us," he added.

'Resistance'

The proposed convention has been stuck in a committee since 1996. The debate has focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa backed Mr Annan's latest definition, telling Reuters news agency that it could serve as the "basis for consensus".

However, "resisting occupation is a different issue altogether", he said.

Mr Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, told the BBC that the UN was mindful of objections to the definition on the basis that people who take up arms against a state to protect their freedoms do not have equal rights to strike back.

The UN needed to be understanding and protective of issues of political freedom and political participation, he said.

However, the behaviour of states was already heavily circumscribed by conventions governing the use of force, such as the Geneva conventions, he added.

"The argument now is that individuals who use violence for political purposes must similarly be constrained by similarly unambiguous definitions, and that there must be clear straightforwardness in condemning them," he said.

Meaning of Terrorism, Hmm...

I think, its everywhere.

Look behind you! someone's trying to steal your stuff...

Inside schools, kids bully their defenseless classmates...

In nature, People cutting down trees...

But as what Flipzi said, one cause is Poverty and the other is ignorance

What about...


" Any act of targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act despite the fact that most nations or the majority of the populace where the perpetrators of terrorism belongs to do not agree to the latter's cause".


The " where the perpetrators of terrorism belongs to do not agree to the latter's cause " clause emphazise why an act is dintinguished from defending one's sovereign country against an superior invader.

In Iraq, the situation is different because the majority of the populace wants the UN's undertakings to remain until all its missions are accomplished or until Iraq gets back on its feet again.

The minority who are killing fellow Moslem Iraqis is what defines terrorism from a mere act of defending one's freedom from an aggressor.

In our case here, the Abu Sayyaf is not a majority and its actions are also being condemned by the Moslem populace here.

The " where the perpetrators of terrorism belongs to do not agree to the latter's cause" sets the demarkation point between a desperate act in defending one's freedom and an act of defeating the overwhelming desire of the majority to impress upon the minority's own intention.

An excellent way to restrict the possibilities of terror attacks on populated places.

The NAIA and similar facilities should do this.

Even malls may take a hint from this strategy.

http://pdff.sytes.net/index.php?act=Post&C...p=8191934&st=15

mahirap yan hehehehe....

if you think about it, guerilla warfare can be considered as "terrorism".....

if the definition is "targetting, attacking, and killing civilians", well.... remember that the first nation to officially develop, construct, and dedicate a bomber wing (the strategic bomber and the strategic bomber command) to bomb civilian centers was the us air force..... used against germany and japan during the closing stages of ww2...... (while hitler bombed london, it was in retaliation for the bombing of a german city and was more of consternation rather than official air force doctrine... the luftwaffe was actually against it)

unless the definition is not retroactive :drunk:

if i was the leader of a country (why do i get the feeling that every time i use that phrase i get into trouble), minding my own business, and i was invaded, i will use all means necessary to save my people, and that includes bringing the war to the invading country's borders and killing enemy civilians...... that's actually the logic behind america's "if you invade us and it seems were losing then we'll nuke your cities" strategic defence doctrine..... which btw china is now using against them :demon:

for the sake of argument, and a definition is created, what then? how do you punish those terrorists? sanctions? embargoes? invasion? and who does the punishing?

:exactly:
I believe that's the point of the U.N. The word was somewhat abused that it was use to invade Iraq, remember, against the WMD, which up to now no proof was found? This method started a precedent where in countries like Israel is also planniing? to use. Same with Australia's statement that they will do whatever is necessary to stop terrorism either within or outside their area of responsibility.

The same is true with regards to actual terrorists. Right now one move by coalition forces was to cut-down the funding sources. They need to define the word to justify certain moves or sanctions to accounts believed to be funding terrorist groups without violating the law. As in the case of the CPP/NDF/NPA and Al Queda/JI.

With these move, the U.N. will have a basis.

It's a good thing the UN is now trying its best to clear things out.

The extremists are trying to justify their attacks by claiming that their actions were just an act of defending their country and interest.

Do you guys, still recall the issue involving how France was trying to ban the women from covering their faces (was it a scarf or what?) when they go to schools and other places in an effort to prevent religion from affecting their way of life too much?

The Moslems extremists in the Middle East reacted by abducting a Frenchman and intimidated the French govt to stop the ban.

This case is one exact form of terrorism because the extremists were using violence in trying to intimidate a foreign country from directing what that country thinks is right for their own people, and France was not invading the extermist's country. In fact, their own peers have invaded France.

Should France be the one who'll adjust to these minorities's way of life?

Or should it be those who migrated to France themselves who must respect the rule of law of that country where they are forcing their own selves to live in?

With the case on cutting-down funding, AS LONG AS THE GROUP IS TAGGED AS TERRORISTS, THEN ALL FUNDS OR MONEY ACCOUNTS LINKED TO THEM SHOULD BE FROZEN.

:exactly:

The justification would be, "as long as these funds are at the terrorists' disposal, these funds will be utilized to support their operations, in some way or the other, sooner or later".

If it is killing innocent civilians just to intimidate the govt then IT IS!

If it is destroying vital infrastructure just to intimidate the govt then IT IS!

So, is the destruction of private telecom towers and power lines including the burning of buses an act of terrorism?

Like what the CPP-NPA did?

PRECISELY YES!

:exactly:

Yes, but Japan had threatened the US and it was the only thing that could end the war and SAVE MANY LIVES.

The US was trying to defend what Japan tried to invade. In fact, Japan even invaded the US when it attacked Pearl Harbor.

That delineates "defending one's nation in times of war" from that of "terrorism".

If it hits that level, then we can at least say that ... "that's why we are trying to prevent it from happening again"... by drawing the line between "defending one's country" from "terrorism".

Have we forgotten that war spares noone? Plain and simple. War is war.

But in times when no country is being invaded or threatened, then any action hurting civilians is considered a form of terrorism.

In the case of the US campaign. Extremists (not Iraq itself) led by Osama Bin Laden invaded the US when 9/11 strucked New York.

The US should have made it clear that Iraq or Saddam was behind it.

But if there was clear info linking Saddam to 9/11, then Iraq was an accomplish in invading the US during the 9/11 attack.

What the US did in Iraq, was not clear if it was in defense of the US nation or an overreaction or just a way to find someone to blame for.

So, is the US fueling terrorism?

To some extent, Yes. Because it failed to give all the reason why it must invade Iraq and compromise a lot of Iraqi civilians.

Extremists are just a minority. They aren't even the general sentiment of the whole citizenry where these people belong to.

The UN and not the US should lead all actions involving the fight on terrorism.

The UN must work with that country, where this terrorists are hiding, to hunt these ragtags down.

The UN may work with the local police and military to hunt these terrorists down.

When a country is not cooperating with the UN then it is a clear manifestation that that country is trying to wage war against the targets of terrorism.

The UN can then do all it can to stop this aggressor from further hurting other nations.

All actions will be considered including bombing populated cities just to flush out and annihilate the terrorists group.

This is not an act of invading this country ...

... BUT AN ACT OF DEFENDING US FROM THIS COUNTRY WHO TRIED TO INVADE US BY DISTURBING OUR NATION AND PUTTING THE LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS IN GREAT DANGER.

If Saddam had indeed done his part in the 9/11, then what the US did is justified.

But if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, then the US should not have terrorized the Iraqi people.

The very simple definition of terrorism is - intimidation, coercion, killing, destruction and other forms of violent acts imbued with unreasonable hatred in the name of any strange ideology against other ideologies devoid of consideration and respect to life's peaceful existence.

Also this highly states how we should combine all of our intelligence together to get rid of such pests. In most cases, those living in dire straights are the easiest ones to manipulate to join such a cause since they are in such a predicament and don't know any better at the time. But mind you, their leaders / recruiters are not entirely living under such hard conditions. Not unless though if they are in hiding since they are almost near to the point of being arrested.

They are the parasites living off from the suicidal actions of those they deceive. The number one tool being utilized is miguiding future recruits with ideology through the disguise of religion.

Sad to say, such fundamentalism is being mostly perpetrated by those practicing the Islamic Faith. Sorry Guys, this is the common trend at the moment and I don't mean to stereotype our Muslim Brothers and Sisters.

Bottom line, we too have a responsibility to live by our own personal example to avoid such misconceptions by the would be enemy recruiting more innocents to bomb us. Don't give them a reason to think of such.

Here's a different kind of terrorism.

Eyewitness: Rainbow Warrior sinking
Two limpet mines blew a hole in the side of the ship

Twenty years ago on Sunday, the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior was blown up in New Zealand. Alexander Gillespie, now a law professor at the University of Waikato, remembers what happened.

Two days before the Rainbow Warrior was destroyed, I and two other student volunteers were painting it in preparation for the next leg of its journey in the South Pacific.

That was why it looked so good after it was sunk.

Had it been blown up before we'd finished painting, it would have looked a very different vessel to the one that posterity now recognises.

Despite knowing for months in advance that the legendary Rainbow Warrior was coming, volunteers to help prepare the vessel were very slow in coming, because the nuclear issue was off the boil.

Culture of protest

New Zealand was in a kind of limbo at that time. When, after years of campaigning, the newly elected government said no to any future visits from either nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels, there was an odd silence.

Looking back, the silence was all the more notable following a long series of very public protests.

We had recently emerged from an administration which had driven a wedge through the middle of the nation by inviting the Springbok rugby team to tour whilst apartheid was at its height.

The jails were full of the middle class, and protesting and speaking out was becoming part and parcel of the Kiwi psyche. Everyone had an opinion.

Protests over visits by nuclear vessels were of a different magnitude to those related to the Springbok tour.

From the late 1970s onwards, whenever a foreign nuclear vessel was invited to our country, protesters streamed onto the ocean in chaotic make-shift flotillas of everything from small boats to surfboards.

The anti-nuclear protests hit their peak in the early 1980s, as cruise missiles were deployed in Europe and the Cold War threatened to warm up.

The risk of a nuclear war seemed very real to my generation, and the sanctity of the South Pacific seemed unlikely in a nuclear winter.

I made a poster for Greenpeace entitled "A nuclear-free and independent Pacific". It sold in its thousands as people responded well to the nuclear-free message.

But then the administration changed, and when the newly elected government said no to any future visits from nuclear vessels, the megaphones and placards were put away.

The sales of my poster fell to single digits within a few months, and interest in the issue declined sharply.

For many people, the war was already over.

Shock and silence

Then the Rainbow Warrior was sunk, by two limpet mines, and a deep silence fell over the nation as the freshly painted vessel rested on the floor of Auckland harbour.

I remember being in the Greenpeace office the day after the bombing, trying to work out what to do, and no one knew what was appropriate.

Eventually some of us were sent down to the wharf with a charity box, and we just stood there trying to fathom the depth of the world we had now entered.

Protesters expected to be locked up, not bombed. Protesters expected governments to be angry with them, but not to kill them, especially not when operating in other countries.

We were stunned, as was the country in general.

It was not the first terrorist act of the decade in New Zealand. A suicide bomber had hit a few years earlier, along with a separate bombing of a trade union building.

But this was different. This was an act against a group of people who pledged non-violence, who sought to use free speech and public opinion to challenge governments, and who were protesting about an issue which had been building for 15 years.

Rainbow Warrior, 1970s
Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior was sunk by the French secret service

Most of the targets were visitors to our land, and our hospitality had been violated by professional saboteurs from France, a nation whose war cemeteries were full of New Zealand soldiers.

The stunned silence domestically was echoed by the muted silence of our neighbours and alleged Allies.

No nation came to the defence of the small but vocal country which said it would no longer partake in the high stakes game of nuclear brinkmanship, and no nation spoke out loudly about the atrocity.

When we refused to hand back the captured terrorists, we faced insurmountable trade threats, and New Zealand realized it was very alone in the world.

I believe it was at this point that New Zealand entered adulthood. We had no big friends, neighbours or family to fight for us, and we had to go it alone on an issue that came to galvanise all Kiwis.

The bombing and the response to it came to be seen as a crime against all Kiwis, not just those who were directly targeted.

It was not just about a bunch of hippies getting offside with the authorities, the nuclear issue, an act of war, our sovereignty or the silence.

Sales of my poster again took off, but this time purchasers placed an emphasis on the words "independent Pacific" - and we were.

flipzi, ok, so there must be no state of war. if there is, all bets are off.

how about this for a definition:

"an INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, ARMY, or NATION that employs strategies and tactics that

1) result in INDISCRIMINATE targetting of NON-COMBATANTS.
2) targets NON-COMBATANTS for purposes of MURDER, TORTURE, or IMPRISONMENT.
3) provides/develops safe havens, training, funding, infrastructure, or sells/donates/finances equipment or weapons to groups using above tactics.

This definition holds true only if there is no state of war declared or prevailing."

spiderweb, i don't think cctv's would last very long in the metro.... it would be looted in no time :drunk:

saver, nice article on the rainbow warrior, and a valid point. dee french did it, non?

It Can Happen Anywhere

The killers of the global jihad have only one way of showing they're alive and active: more carnage.

Aug. 1 issue - Jitendra Patel, a 40-year-old software developer from London, was enjoying an "absolutely brilliant" time last week with his family in Sharm al-Sheikh, a posh beach resort on the Red Sea. Patel's 7-year-old daughter, Manisha, had just finished school in the United Kingdom, and Patel needed a break, too. He had been one of those on the London Underground on July 7, making his way to work at Merrill Lynch, when the first group of bombers hit. Like thousands of other passengers, the "cheesed off" Patel had been forced to evacuate and take to the streets.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

But late Friday night Patel learned just how small the world has become. Shortly after he returned to his room at the five-star Movenpick Hotel on Sharm al-Sheikh's main boulevard, his wife, Kashmira, glimpsed a split-second flash of light through the window. Then she heard a roar. The bone-jarring force of the explosion knocked loose the doorknob of the Patels' room. Across the street they saw that a car bomb had sheared away the face of the Ghazala Gardens Hotel, turning its lobby into a pile of rubble. At least 88 people died in that and two other coordinated blasts that night. Patel, who was back at the Movenpick pool sunning himself the next day, seems resigned to the new facts of global terror in the 21st century: "We can't keep running away. It's life." Kashmira Patel, on the other hand, has nothing like her husband's aplomb. "I'm frightened for everyone," she says. "It can happen to anyone, anywhere."

That seems to be the message that this latest wave of terrorists badly want to drive home. No one is safe. While no evidence connects the suicide bombers on the London transit system with the Sharm al-Sheikh car-bomb attacks, both were coordinated, fairly sophisticated plots. And each succeeded in two of the most terror-vigilant nations in the world: Britain and Egypt. Both countries have built effective counterterrorism operations for decades—but for both, the July attacks were their deadliest ever. One of the London bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, had even gotten into Israel—perhaps the most security-conscious state in the world—on his British passport in February 2003 with a group of other ethnic Pakistani Brits, Israeli officials said. (Two months later a Pakistani Brit blew himself up at a Tel Aviv cafe, killing three people.)

The style of the London and Sharm al-Sheikh attacks bore some similarities, too. In Sharm, three bombs went off simultaneously at 1:15 a.m. Saturday, more than two miles apart. In London on July 7, four bombers hit three subway trains and a bus at almost exactly the same moment as well. Last Thursday, four more London bombers who were believed to be part of the same terror network tried again but the bombs fizzled. The quick second strike was in itself unusual: Qaeda-related groups typically launch one big attack, then lie low for a while. British investigators now believe the explosives used in last Thursday's dud bombs were likely from the same batch as the explosives used in the July 7 bombings, which also matched a cache of explosives left in a car by the suspects at the Luton railway station north of London.

Why did the second round of bombs fail to detonate? According to a U.S. official, early indications are that the people who put them together had to use "improvised detonators" because better ones were seized by police from the car left at Luton, and the homemade explosives had degraded. The four suspects who attempted last week's London bombings were still at large late last week. Security forces chased down another suspect and shot him dead on the subway in front of terrified passengers. But then, a day later, embarrassed authorities announced the dead man, Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was a Brazilian who was not connected to the July 21 terrorist attacks at all.

Another disturbing sign of a broad-based resurgence of Qaeda-style terrorism is the roster of victims. As in Iraq, it's not just the infidels of the West who are being targeted, but any Muslims who ally themselves with the United States and other Western powers or work for their companies. After the London bombings, some Muslim clerics began speaking out more forthrightly against extremism. And at a conference earlier this month in Jordan, a group of Sunni clerics declared an end to their centuries-old internecine war with Shiites. But bombers like those in Sharm al-Sheikh may be trying to terrorize the Muslim community into silence again. At least two of the bombs were likely aimed at tourists, at the Ghazala Gardens and at a popular boardwalk. But the majority of victims were Egyptian, and one of the targets hit Friday night was a cafe in the Old Market, where many Egyptian workers congregate. Also last week, two bombs went off in the streets of Beirut, Lebanon, only hours after a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There were no deaths, but one explosion targeted popular Monot Street, which is frequented by Arab tourists.

This harrowing message to fellow Muslims—keep away from the infidel or die—was also delivered last week by an Islamist Web site frequently used by the group led by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq. After Algeria's envoy was kidnapped last week, the site posted a statement: "Algeria rushed to obey the crusaders by sending its envoy to Iraq ... did you not learn from the fate of the ambassador of the Egyptian tyrant?" (Terrorists killed the Egyptian ambassador last month.) "They just want to kill to say to the world, 'We are still here and we are still strong and we can hit whenever we want'," says Huthaifa Azzam, the son of Abdullah Azzam, the Palestinian-born organizer of the "Arab Afghans" who fought against the Russians in the 1980s and provided the core recruits of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

Investigators and analysts say it is difficult to create a profile of this latest generation of terrorists. Many appear to be young men who have spontaneously created cells in their home countries—with perhaps some outside help from a skilled "facilitator." The London bomb plotters, who authorities say could number more than two dozen, included Britons of Pakistani ethnicity, while the Madrid train bombers of March 2004 were mostly Spanish nationals of Moroccan extraction. Egyptian investigators over the weekend were unsure of the identity of the Sharm plotters, but one witness account at the Old Market said a man announced, "I have a bomb," in Egyptian Arabic shortly before it went off. A group called the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Al Qaeda in Syria and Egypt, claimed responsibility. This was one of two extremist groups that also claimed responsibility for October bombings at two other Egyptian resorts, in Taba and Ras Shitan, which killed 34.

Whoever the terrorists are, they seem intent on driving wedges between the United States and its allies in both Iraq and in the broader war on terror, one by one. Some Brits looking for reasons for the July 7 and July 21 attacks blamed Prime Minister Tony Blair's support of the Iraq war, which is deeply unpopular in Britain. The London bombings also provoked a testy exchange between Blair and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whose country has allegedly become a kind of jihadist finishing school, where some would-be terrorists seem to get operational knowledge and final instructions. "The problem is not in Pakistan; the problem is in England," Musharraf insisted to ABC News.

Many of these new native-born terror cells don't need much recruitment from abroad or training in Afghan-style camps—the old Qaeda model. When one of the July 7 bombers, Shahzad Tanweer, visited Pakistan in late 2004 and early 2005, he told his family that he was going to attend a Pakistani religious school, or madrassa, to further his religious education. But Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on extremist groups, says Tanweer and his fellow bombers were likely "fully indoctrinated on arrival" thanks to their radical connections in Britain. Adds Christine Fair of the U.S. Institute of Peace: "The Pakistani diaspora [abroad] appears to be the place where people are radicalizing. They go to Pakistan for training."

For international investigators, the only sensible approach is to work even more closely together. British and U.S. authorities appear to have established clear connections between some of the suspected perpetrators of the July 7 suicide bombings in London and a plot that was broken up early last year by British authorities—with the help of an American informant named Mohammed Junaid Babar—to bomb unspecified targets in the London area. That counterterrorism operation was code-named Operation Crevice. U.S., British and Pakistani officials also cooperated behind the scenes to capture another man who may be connected to the July 7 bombings and whose name turned up in the Operation Crevice databases, according to a senior U.S. official who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of his work. This is Haroon Rashid Aswat, a native-born Briton of Indian or Pakistani ancestry, who may have played a critical role in this and other plots. In the late 1990s, Aswat served as a sidekick to one of London's most notorious jihadist imams, the hook-handed Egyptian-born preacher Abu Hamza al-Mazri. He was also linked to a failed effort to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. U.S. officials said that the names of two of the July 7 bombers, Khan and Germaine Lindsay, also turned up in Operation Crevice. An official familiar with the London investigation told NEWSWEEK late last week that Aswat has been quietly captured and will soon undergo questioning.

That may help investigators desperately trying to avert the next attack before it happens. But the broader question is how to prevent another generation of terrorists from being created. British and European investigators who evince a new get-tough approach to terror within their borders may open themselves to the same kind of accusations the Americans face: that they are targeting the innocent as well as the guilty, and thereby generating more terrorists. British police indicated on Saturday that the man they mistakenly shot on the tube was followed because he "emerged from a block of flats in the Stockwell area that were under police surveillance." The police statement add-ed: "For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets." Would that the terrorists expressed similar regrets about the deaths of innocents. Instead, "increasingly we are seeing attacks either in the West or in Iraq or in Egypt that are purely nihilistic," says Bill Durodie of Britain's Royal Military College of Science. "We are seeing terrorism that is an end in itself." And that has no end in sight.

With Stryker Mcguire, Emily Flynn and William Underhill in London, Christopher Dickey in Paris, Gameela Ismail in Sharm al-Sheikh, Zahid Hussain and Ron Moreau in Islamabad, Sami Yousafzai in Peshawar and Daniel Klaidman in Washington