What disturbs me more than the direct action of the terrorist is the subtle implication made by the line of thinking I keep seeing everywhere on the internet after both Loughner and the Oslo Shooter:
Islamic, Arabic Terrorist Destroys Building: My God, why do people allow themselves to be used as pawns in their game? What is it about the Quran that makes people literally think they're going to get 42 virgins upon death should they do these terrible things?
White, Blonde Male with Political Agenda Destroys Building: My God, crazy people just... they just don't need any reason to be crazy, do they? I mean, they'll just latch onto
any political idea in their thirst for blood!
I'm going to get a flurry of responses for this post along the lines of "That's not what we're saying at all!", so I'll challenge you to go back through all the threads on terrorism we've had here and present evidence that this has not been what you've done before you disagree with me. It would be wiser to stop and reflect on what you think, and maybe, if you actually do come to the conclusion that there's a dangerous flaw in your reasoning, consider how you can change that.
Or come back here and struggle to prove that you're an infallible saint. Either way.
Um...you do realize that there are Buddhist countries out there who have been accused of human right violations when suppressing insurgencies (Sri Lanka, Myanmar)? And the Myanmar government in particular was involved heavily in funding Buddhist temples and promoting Buddhist religion, not sure about Sri Lanka.
Don't exclude "state terrorism" from the equation.
A militant group differs from our popular conception of a terrorist group based on their targeting of civilians.
No, just no. A military unit does not automatically not feel terrorism just because he holds a uniform. And the American Revolutionaries's tarring and feathering of tax collectors is not something to be excused.
So you think the people in Myanmar and Sri Lanka who abused their civilians were following the teachings of Buddhism? Seems more likely, to me, that they donated money to religious buildings to appease their populace. They also wouldn't be terrorists until death squads were running into public places and gunning down civilians going about their day at random.
I think you misinterpreted my distinction between a militant group and a terrorist group, as well. The terrorist group deliberately attacks
civilians, and not military targets. This distinction is why groups like the French Resistance and (in popular fiction) the Rebel Alliance aren't typically villified by our society.