Não me vem colar a pecha de petista, velho, senão te mando tnc agora... a gente já cansou de mostrar exemplos em que um crime com vítimas ocidentais possui um "valor" muito diferente daqueles cometidos contra vítimas islâmicas...
Presta atenção... E dessa vez eu vou desenhar.
Desde a década de 80 o Alex P. Schimd (sem "t" no final) edita um
livro de estudos sobre terrorismo, onde ele consulta as 100 (mais em algumas edições) maiores autoridades acadêmicas ou na área de política externa sobre o tema do terrorismo. São diretores de centros internacionais de estudo sobre terrorismo, são acadêmicos, ex-terroristas, embaixadores, secretários de defesa, etc. Gente que trabalha pra entender e resolver o problema.
Logo no início do livro, ele já trata da questão da religião.
The phenomenon of terrorism in religious movements is not a new one. Historically, all three Abrahamic traditions have experienced the rise of radical offshoots that promote extreme interpretations of religion and engage in ‘holy’ violence to promote worldly political objectives. The same can be said for nearly all non-Abrahamic traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. Those who want to promote a peaceful agenda that includes compromise with former enemies and accommodation with extant political elites
will find in their religious tradition the requisite verses and symbols for peace. Those who want to promote a militant agenda that includes anti-civilian violence and rebellion against incumbent governments will find in their religion the required verses and symbols for war.
Thus, the best way to proceed analytically is by looking at the political agendas of religious groups, the conditions that may encourage them to turn to violence, and the dynamics of contention that facilitate their growth or decline. There is hardly any evidence to suggest
that the content of religion is sufficient to give rise to political extremism and terrorism.
All world religions have featured periods of peace and periods of extreme violence.
Religion has an ambiguous relationship with violence in general. Although religion is often associated with positive values such as compassion and peace, the mythology of most world religions is filled with violent images and bloody histories.
The main problem in studying the role played by religious radicalism (extremism) in motivating, supporting, justifying and guiding a certain group’s terrorist activity can be most evidently demonstrated by the case of Islamist terrorism. The problem is that while
religious extremism may serve as a powerful driving force and/or be effectively instrumentalized to guide/justify terrorist activity, it does not necessarily or automatically lead to terrorism or indeed, to violence(!) It should also be stressed that groups using
terrorist means in the name of religion do not necessarily represent some ‘deviant sects’, but are often guided by a radical interpretation of religion’s basic tenets, concepts and notions, such as the radical militant interpretation of a traditional and essential Islamic
concept of jihad. Still, while Islamist jihadi terrorism has become the main form of transnational (in fact, supra-national) terrorism over the recent decade, it does not mean that all Islamist (radical Islamic) movements include jihad in a set of their first priorities
and are ready to use violence, particularly against civilians (e. g. the strongly extremist Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement in Central Asia has consciously opted not just for abstaining from the use of terrorist means, but for non-violence in general) [a view that is not
uncontested; A.S.].
[r]eligious beliefs can be used to justify any possible perversion. Thus, a faith system based on the teachings of a man who advocated complete non-violence and exhorted his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ was at one time in history used to justify the tortures and abuses of the Inquisition, and the conquering rampages of the Crusades. . . . All religious texts contain a sufficient measure of ambiguity to lend themselves to virtually any ethical scheme.
There is no direct relationship between terrorism and religion. But religious extremists are commonly using incitement and brainwashing messages in order to provoke their followers to use terrorism in order to fulfil the so-called divine command. Religion is also used to challenge the internationally widely accepted laws of war, and permit in the name of God deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian targets. Religious extremists are sometimes trying to justify their wrongdoing as a defensive war that is designed to protect their religion from malicious intent of other religions with the cooperation of the ‘infidels’ from their own religion. In many cases the religious extremist provocateurs have concrete political goals which they are trying to achieve – revolting against regimes, demolishing ‘infidel’
states, or creating a new religious political entity.
Marxists tried to divide human societies by ‘class’ and propagated class war. Fascists used the equally fuzzy concept of ‘race’ to identify their public enemy. Salifist Islamists now use religion, dividing humankind into true Muslims on the one hand and unbelievers (kafir) and heretics (takfir) on the other hand and they alone arrogate who belongs to which group. In each generation, it seems, fanatics come up with a new justification for killing fellow human beings and find adherents among the uneducated and as well their well-educated ideological entrepreneurs who see a chance to instrumentalize class, race or religion to achieve political power for themselves.
E pra finalizar, um problema com esse tipo de conceituação:
‘Which (other) conceptual questions on terrorism are, in your view, not yet adequately solved?’
The increasing inadequacy of the basic and most commonly used typologies of terrorism (domestic (= internal) versus international terrorism; distinctions based on motivation, as most groups are driven by more than one motivation (e.g. national + religious + socio-political goals) (Stepanova).
The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, pg. 21 a 26
