Is this the 'war on terror' or the 'war on Islam'?

Maybe a terrorist is only a terrorist if they are of the Muslim faith.

A good example is the IRA - They have trained South American and Palastinian terrorists for decades to fight their governments, Americans and Israelies. They receive money from the American people from 'charities' such as NORAID, 'Friends of Armagh Society', 'Friends of Sinn Fein' etc. Sinn Fein member Martin Maguiness was a former IRA commander yet has been to the USA and the White House more times than most people have probably been. I think its crazy that 'Cat Stevens' was refused entry based on his Islamic name but Gerry Adams and Martin are more than welcome.

I am not anti-American but I am anti anyone that funds ANY active terrorist orgainsation.

Well, call it "war on Islamic terror" then, because indeed, noone seems to care about non-islamic terrorist factions anymore these days.

I was under the impression that it was against all forms of terrorism. I did not realise that some forms of terrorism were actually 'good'

A simple reason for this could be that as of yet non-Islamic terrorist organisations have been localized organisations doing their dirty work in limited regions and against a single opponent.

Who the victim is, is also of great importance the world doesnt care about Kashmir terrorists blowing up a bunch of Indians or Tamils blowing up a bunch of Indonesians, heck, the world doesnt even care all that much when the IRA blew up a bunch of Londoners. It was seen as a localized problem which wasnt any world problem. When the US got hit though, it was a completely different thing, the WTC attacks were also so visible and so big as to attract a lot of attention but there would still not be any war on terror if it had been a non-US skyscraper which they had flewn into.

I agree with joacquin. At least as far as I hear from the less-than-comprehensive American media, it seems to me that most other terror groups are more narrowly focused on achieving a specific aim. Islamic terrorists won't settle for anything less than the complete destruction of Western, non-Muslim society. They just happen to be starting with the US because we're the biggest symbol of everything they hate.

As for why the US isn't combatting the other groups... well, it's been said in another thread that the US President tends to look out for the US interests first. That's logical - show me a national leader who doesn't (OK, OK, aside from power-hungry dictators, or course). Let the IRA or the Chechnyans or the Basque separatists branch out of their focussed fight and attack American interests, and we'll see how long it takes for this to become a more comprehensive war on terror.

RAllymama that is a very narrow minded thing to say. The IRA have been arming and training South American terrorist groups for decades to attempt to overthrow their governments and attack American soldiers that attempt destroy their poppy fields. Also certain Islamic terrorist groups have been trained by the IRA. Thats over 1000 Soldiers in Iraq dead and thousands seriously injured.

The Islamic people do not hate your freedom and rights. They hate your 'precision bombings', prison abuses and 'shoot at anything that moves policy'

Do you think that not a single American has died in N.Ireland when shopping malls have been targeted by bombs and mortars in their terror reign? Ok they were not targeted especially but it did'nt matter to the Ira that they died anyway. You should find it insulting that your government can allow the political wing of the IRA to be invited over for coffee in the white house, then again maybe not.

The IRA have been arming and training South American terrorist groups for decades to attempt to overthrow their governments and attack American soldiers that attempt destroy their poppy fields. Also certain Islamic terrorist groups have been trained by the IRA. Thats over 1000 Soldiers in Iraq dead and thousands seriously injured.That's the kind of thing that I haven't seen in the "less-than-comprehensive" American media coverage. Can you provide some citations to your sources? Further information will certainly help to shape (or re-shape) my views - at the risk of being called a flip-flopper.

The Islamic people do not hate your freedom and rights. They hate your 'precision bombings', prison abuses and 'shoot at anything that moves policy'Y'know what? I hate those policies, too. But, again coming from my skewed American viewpoint, which came first - our 'precision bombings' or their car/truck/plane bombing? From what I know, Islamic extremists view capitalism and the workings of American businesses as a threat to Islam. Trust me, American CEOs just want to make money - they're not out to destroy one of the world's great religions. If there's a problem in the Islamic world that makes American exports - including popular culture - appealing, perhaps the mullahs should be looking internally instead of targetting the messenger.

Before you jump on this, I'll admit that it's a stated goal of the current administration to make the world safe for democracy and to export similar American values. In philosophy this is nice, but I heartily disagree with how it's being pursued. I think we're only reinforcing the Islamists' fears.

@ Cesard - I can see why you feel this way. However, I don't think you're entirely correct here.

First of all, most of the major terrorist attacks in recent years HAVE been conducted by Islamic groups. (I assume that's what you mean when you say the Muslim faith.) Just look at the biggies of the past few years. They were from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia, Chechnya, and Palestine. (OK, I'm not sure about the Chechnyans. They have a large Muslim population, so it seems like a safe assumption, but I don't know for sure.)

Secondly, the only people the U.S. targets are those groups who specifically target American interests. So far, the largest threat to U.S. interests comes from Islamic groups. Granted, the war on terror shouldn't have included Iraq. That was a huge mistake, however it doesn't change the fact that Islamic terrorist groups do pose the greatest threat to U.S. interests.

Thirdly, we don't traget these people because they're Muslims, we traget them because they're terrorists. It's not like that if a Christian did commit some terrorist action in the U.S., that we wouldn't do anything about it. Take Timothy McVie and the Oklahoma City bombing a few years back.

I do agree that the war on terror up to this point has focused mainly on Islamic groups, but until some non-Islamic groups start to pose a threat as grave as the Islamic groups, this isn't going to change. I think you're seeing what is actually a symptom as the root cause.

That's the kind of thing that I haven't seen in the "less-than-comprehensive" American media coverage. Can you provide some citations to your sources? Further information will certainly help to shape (or re-shape) my views - at the risk of being called a flip-flopper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1947808.stm

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/farc-ira-pr.cfm

i fought the IRA in columbia, also the british have persued them in brazil and bolivia, the SAS traced them down in gibraltar where they were planning terrorist attacks on british interests there to sway towards the spanish and weve also fought them in jersey. they did seem to get around.

to think that they werent involved with any domestic US groups would be absured.... especially since alot of their weapons seemed to come from "armalite" which is a major US weapons manufacturer.