The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
166

The stated goal of ISIS is to eliminate "the grey area". Today there is a sizeable minority of Muslims living in western society. ISIS wants to show that it's not possible for Muslims to live in the western world. Their method is to perform terrorist attacks in the hope it will cause a backlash against Muslims living in the western world. ISIS states this ...


126

You say these things don't happen when they do. Case in point, the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 mastermind and behind Daniel Pearl's execution) who WAS jailed in Egypt early in his life, had to flee Bosnia when intelligence had pinpointed him, and was finally captured and turned over to the US by Pakistan. In other words, he was targeted by Muslim ...


117

This question seems a little like why do terrorists commit terror? The aim of a terrorist group isn't usually to be left alone, but more to provoke conflict, or as a form of violent protest against what they believe is a wrong. You are mistaken when you claim terrorism only do temporary physical damage The value in a terrorist attack isn't really the ...


99

The name Islamic State is a claim to a global caliphate. This claim is rejected by everybody else, from western leaders to Muslim leaders, to other Islamic extremists. "so-called" is added to make it clear that this is not an objective or descriptive term, but a self-chosen label which does not reflect the true nature of a group. It happens with other ...


88

There is no single definition of terrorism that everyone agrees to. However, Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate [... the] law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; ... Is used in the USA. (Title 18, section 2331) So was it violent? Yes. Was it criminal? Yes, I don't see any ...


85

A lot of the opposition to arming the London Police seems to be due to the Police themselves. The BBC explored this in 2012 A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years. And Arming ...


80

Kill versus capture If they had captured Osama bin Laden, what would they have done with him? Barack Obama opposed the Guantanamo Bay facility, so they would have had to keep him on United States soil. Where? If captured, he would have been tried, convicted, and executed. So not kill versus capture but kill then versus later. His trial would have ...


71

My point is, it just seems ... well obvious to not be scared of terror attacks. It might seem that way to you, but it still doesn't stop politicians from demanding and making policy based on fear of terrorism: There are demands for extended surveillance, justified with requiring these as tools for law enforcement to fight terrorism. There are demands for ...


68

Because Pape doesn't know what he's talking about. Islamic jihadist groups Boko Haram and Al Shabbab terrorize African communities in Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Chad, Cameroon, Niger, and Tanzania- which of those countries is engaged in military occupation? The Iraqi Yazidis are terrorized by ISIS - and they don't even have a state or army. Or how ...


58

TL;DR: Yes, there is an objective term.No, there is no way to force people to use the term objectively in political contexts and they don't tend to. The term "terrorism" isn't subjective. Quoting Wikipedia: Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: ...


53

There is no particular benefit to using a nuclear weapon. We have some conventional bombs that rival a small nuke in terms of destructive power, without the lasting fallout. Using a nuke would basically be using a sledge hammer to swat a fly, leaving lasting radiation damage that affects friendlies, non-enemies, and civilians alike. Once a nuke is used ...


44

First of all, ISIS claims that "killing kafirs is always good". Official ISIS Announcement on Brussels Attacks First we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissiable to spill is not him fighting the Muslims, rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing. So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight ...


43

Traffic accidents don't kill people to scare populations, terrorists do. That's literally what terrorism means : act in order to induce terror. Despite the efforts of a determined few to induce a general fear of Muslims (or to equate "Muslim" with "terrorist"), a lot of us know that traffic accidents kill far more people than terrorism, and aren't scared by ...


42

First of all, self-identifying Muslims are not the only people in the world who commit terrorist acts. Terrorist acts are committed by all kinds of people in the name of all kinds of ideologies. But this question seems to be mostly interested in Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism, so this answer will only focus on this. Not all Muslims are the same. There are the ...


37

But what are the arguments for and against the arming of every constable ? Cost - it costs money to train, equip and maintain levels of competence. Overkill (no pun intended) - most crime does not involve any weapon and most armed crimes involve edged weapons or blunt force weapons. These do not generally require a lethal weapon to stop. Likewise an awful ...


36

Because they (Daesh) claim that their government is "Islamic State", but they consider most of Muslims as polytheist or infidel, and on the other hand, the majority of Muslims all over the world consider them to be fake Muslims. We face with two facts: On the one hand they (Daesh) are known in the media as "Islamic State", so in order to talk about them ...


35

Precedent. The world has a seventy year history of shunning the use of nuclear weapons as war fighting tools. Use of nuclear weapons by the USA or any other nation would be a huge line to cross, legitimizing their use by all other nuclear powers. This would fundamentally change the current dynamic, with unknown and possibly terrible consequences.


33

Many answers here are attempting to answer your question in a similar perspective, and they are all extremely interesting and most of them seem very well documented. What I'll offer you is an attempt to destabilize some "absolutes" that emerge from both your question and most of the answers that I do not find so obvious. Forgive me if this is a rebuttal-...


31

As a general rule, when I use the word terrorism, I mean it to involve a small group using terror to attack the general population. Under that kind of definition, it includes the Irish Republican Army and Daesh but excludes the Nazis in Germany or Sherman's March to the Sea. Here, we seem to have an official government (China's) using clandestine force ...


25

It is interesting to note that that kind of terrorism is about the only case where widespread armed response makes any kind of sense at all. The normal UK police (And I wish more politicians would remember this) operates (somewhat imperfectly) on the principals laid down by Sir Robert Peel: The sworn duties of a police officer are: The preservation of ...


25

"Terrorist" as already suggested is thrown around a lot nowadays. One party may consider a group to be terrorist while some other party might view them as revolutionaries or Freedom fighters. However, one undeniable fact, despite the ambiguity in the definition of terrorism , is that if you support factions who deliberately attack civilians, you support ...


24

Because they don't pose an immediate threat that needs to be countered ASAP ISIS isn't a tangible current threat to Israel's existence. They are definitely a threat to Syria or Iraq strategically. They pose varied levels of threat to other Middle East countries. But they don't have the military capability to attack Israel as a fighting force, not anytime ...


23

The short answer is that no, you almost certainly cannot sue. This is for a large number of reasons. First, both the State and Federal governments have sovereign immunity, according to the Supreme Court. This says means that you cannot sue the government unless it has, in some statute, consented to the suit. Though the federal government did consent to some ...


23

An inanimate traffic accident, unlike a living, thinking, scheming terrorist, does not exist with the intent to psychically demoralize people and induce terror. I'm not sure that is an apt analogy. If people seemed cowed and afraid, then a terrorist who killed hoping to induce terror will feel successful, and being successful, will feel like the recent ...


22

Terrorism - the word It is impossible for the British Government to have called the revolutionaries 'terrorists' during the Revolutionary War. The word was not coined until late in that century, and was then applied only to the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution. The word did not acquire its modern usage until just after World War 2, when it was used ...


22

Evidently, they do. There are a lot of Muslim countries who combat terrorism. I think Muslim governments are even more concerned with terrorism than anybody else and take very hard-line measures. Islamist terrorists routinely get imprisoned and executed. Moreover, the most of the "grassroots" popular revolutions in the majority-Muslim countries (Iraq, ...


22

There are many interrelated factors, some of which are: There's just a lot more Sunnis than Shia. Attacks require resources. Sunnis are far better funded (KSA funding Wahhabism; coupled with Iran's relatively depleted funds due to Western sanctions). Attacks require resources. Shia had other priorities (Sunnis). First you had Iran-Iraq war sapping Iran's ...


22

A short answer is the last paragraph. Born and raised as a Muslim, though I am more inclined to defend my lifestyle choices with progressist politics, rather than entities with extra-political world views, like ISIS, I shall attempt to answer your question. First, ISIS doesn't do all the attacks (it just claims to do so) and not mainly for ...


22

There is no single official U.S. definition of terrorism. Rather, each agency or law has its own definition which may conflict with other definitions. Below are a few examples. Dept. of Justice According to the FBI website: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible