Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Suicide attack went out of style with the advent of advance aspect seeking ordnance.

You don't know what you're talking about. While suicide bombing as a military weapon ended in WWII, as a civilian weapon of terror it's very new. It started with car bombs in Libya in '81, then became more widespread after the Tamils invented bomb belts and bomb vests.

As a terror tactic it's far from being out of style. It's 35 year old method that's increasingly prevalent.

My comment couldn't possibly be in relation to the invocation of Japanese suicide bombers. Is it at all possible that the reference to advanced aspect seeking ordnance perhaps indicative it being preferable to humans guiding said ordnance?


"suicide bombing as a military weapon ended in WWII" is literally what I'm saying good sir.


But I guess when you cut out the next sentence, which was "Of course not everyone has a standing army or billion dollar military assets. " you can look really virtuous and smug. Worst movie of the year "movie of the year" declares crab

Attack wasn't plural, I'm literally discussing methodology and not world events.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah, probably best not to do that.

It depends why someone is doing it. If it is because someone wants to discount the impact extremist Islam has had on the US, then that'd be a bad and dishonest reason. Fortunately no-one is doing that.

But if it is because people want to talk about the state of existing threats by looking at recent rates of violent attacks by different groups, it is worthwhile to remove 9/11. Because the AQ that managed that attack is not capable of anything like that today - and they haven't been for more than a decade - US IC work has pulled AQ's capabilities apart. This is why AQ and now ISIS are reduced to sporadic, low tech attacks by single actors, and not the complex, multi-factor attacks from the 90s and early 00s.

The irony is not lost on me either that a lot of the thread has felt like "discounting islam" the spread of religious ideallogical motivation for terrorism is all over the map and totally evenly spread and shows no trends or disparities at all.

You continue to lie about the positions of people opposing your take on the role of Islam in this. Stop it.

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah, probably best not to do that.

It depends why someone is doing it. If it is because someone wants to discount the impact extremist Islam has had on the US, then that'd be a bad and dishonest reason. Fortunately no-one is doing that.

But if it is because people want to talk about the state of existing threats by looking at recent rates of violent attacks by different groups, it is worthwhile to remove 9/11. Because the AQ that managed that attack is not capable of anything like that today - and they haven't been for more than a decade - US IC work has pulled AQ's capabilities apart. This is why AQ and now ISIS are reduced to sporadic, low tech attacks by single actors, and not the complex, multi-factor attacks from the 90s and early 00s.

The irony is not lost on me either that a lot of the thread has felt like "discounting islam" the spread of religious ideallogical motivation for terrorism is all over the map and totally evenly spread and shows no trends or disparities at all.

You continue to lie about the positions of people opposing your take on the role of Islam in this. Stop it.

I think you'll find, perhaps in hindsight, you're far more emotionally invested in this. As for calling me a liar, well, that seems very polite.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It's a shame we can't have a reasonable debate about the factors influencing terrorism without being accused of a terrorist hugging circle jerk by the 'blame all the Muslims' faction.

There is no 'blame all Moslems' faction. That is the lie PC apologists claim because of an inability cannot handle the actual opinions, and the naked truth that there is a serious problem, and appeasement isnt the answer.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
That stat is actually a few years old, so it was Obama era, not "current administration".

I can't find anything reporting that number, and you seem indifferent to actually providing it.
.

If by "indifferent" you mean not being on dakka for a 30 hour period while a worked a full time job, slept, and did parental duties, sure, whatever.

Even by politifacts estimates there are 181 million radicalized Muslims. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

Pew Research Center states that 8% of Muslims support Suicide bombing http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/ That's 360,000,000 according to them.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Muslims-are-radical

Also, "radical" doesn't mean that you are actively polishing your AK47 waiting to take out the next Christian/Jew/ American you see. It's more of a frame of mind.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
That stat is actually a few years old, so it was Obama era, not "current administration".

I can't find anything reporting that number, and you seem indifferent to actually providing it.
.

If by "indifferent" you mean not being on dakka for a 30 hour period while a worked a full time job, slept, and did parental duties, sure, whatever.

Even by politifacts estimates there are 181 million radicalized Muslims. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

Pew Research Center states that 8% of Muslims support Suicide bombing http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/ That's 360,000,000 according to them.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Muslims-are-radical

Also, "radical" doesn't mean that you are actively polishing your AK47 waiting to take out the next Christian/Jew/ American you see. It's more of a frame of mind.

You're in fact wrong, seb is the first human to develop the ability to read minds lol

 Crablezworth wrote:
He shouldn't be commenting. Its a political football better left ignored because no matter how wrong he was to do it, damage done. No sense ensuring his next election victory before you get to impeach him. When clinton wouldn't even say the words islamic terrorism after the terrorist attack in orlando

This is at least the second bald-faced lie you've posted on this page of the thread.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I've never felt this to be a more accurate commentary:





We're doing everything we can to try and obfuscate doctrine and principles with context. We hear weasel words like "many factors" without ever hearing much about what said other factors are.

If I applied the same tactic with, say, white supremacists, I'm sure all the same open minded and compassionate individuals would be agreeing with me in lock step just how rare it is for a white supremacist to commit terrorism or violence and many of them come less than ideal socioeconomic backgrounds and poor education and home life blah blah blah. It's all true and missing the point.

It's the cartoon that misses the point. It also speaks poorly of the pro-discrimination side, seeing that it demonstrates only a superficial understanding of the argument. One shouldn't discriminate against -any- group of people, -any- group of people that is discriminated against are more prone to radicalization, neither of those two statements relate to Islam beyond Muslims happening to be the ones discriminated against right now. That cartoon demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the argument it supposedly criticises, which really says a lot about the level of intelligence involved.

And fwiw, no, we should not discriminate against white supremacists either. People are perfectly entitled to have whatever opinion they like and have a right not to be discriminated for it.

 Crablezworth wrote:
You apparently know more about his motivations than he does, no cognitive distortions there at all.

Nope, that's a straight up lie. At no point did I or anyone else say they knew what this guy's motivations were. We simply gave common motivations and factors that lead to this kind of thing, to show you that 'it's the islam' was a crude and superficial answer.

And in response you've lurched from 'no-one is giving any factors other than Islam' to 'you claim to know the inner workings of this guy's mind'. You went from lying that we gave no explanation, to lying that we tried to give a complete explanation of exactly why this guy did it.

Just stop doing this.

You presented some decent assumptions, but that's all they are and not everyone having a bad time in life becomes a terrorist, but an inordinate portion of those that do have a bad time and do become terrorists fall inordinately under one religion, one you seem positively hell bent to do anything to draw away from.

That's another lie. I'm not discounting the role of Islam. I am trying to put Islam in its proper context, by getting people to appreciate the complexity and diversity within the faith, and then consider all the other factors that lead to this kind of stuff. So we can build an actually useful plan for preventing future attacks, and not just think 'its the islam'.

The fact that you're still seemingly of the opinion that "added Islam for extra attention." if it's so ancillary why keep up the farce?

That wasn't me. Read more closely.

When bill maher said, paraphrasing: "it's not fair to assume you're a racist because you're republican" he also didn't leave out "but if you are a racist, you're more likely a republican" I tend to agree with him and I'm no fan of the democrats. Not all muslims commit terrorism but most terrorists are musilm.

Bill Maher is an awful person and I am genuinely concerned there's so many people out there who are unable to tell this.

It would be an incomplete answer. But we don't get to choose the facts we like, I feel like we're explaining that to each other. Radicalism and victim hood (real or imagined) aren't solely found with the down trodden and those just trying to make ends meet. Victim-hood knows no exclusive economic status. The aggrieved are capable of terrible things with or without an ideology, certainly. But a miserable existence focused, forged and tempered by a terrible set of ideas is more destructive, clearly.

All these things are factors. No one thing ensures a person will become a murderous fanatic, and no one thing is absolutely required for it to be possible. And yeah, most people who tick some or even all of the boxes won't end up a murderous donkey-cave. But reality is there's an aggregate numbers game going on here - and with each factor its more likely an individual will end up doing something very awful.

 Ouze wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
He shouldn't be commenting. Its a political football better left ignored because no matter how wrong he was to do it, damage done. No sense ensuring his next election victory before you get to impeach him. When clinton wouldn't even say the words islamic terrorism after the terrorist attack in orlando

This is at least the second bald-faced lie you've posted on this page of the thread.

", she all but handed trump the win. "


That's the part of the statement you cut out, sport. Seb already tried the out of context thing man.

 Crablezworth wrote:
He shouldn't be commenting. Its a political football better left ignored because no matter how wrong he was to do it, damage done.

No, because there will be a world after Trump and we can't abandon the political standards we expect of our leaders just because Trump wallows in breaking those conventions.

No sense ensuring his next election victory before you get to impeach him. When clinton wouldn't even say the words islamic terrorism after the terrorist attack in orlando, she all but handed trump the win.

I think you're vastly overstating the important that bit of wordplay has outside of chuckleheaded right wing anti-PC set. And on top of that, you were wrong (thanks Ouze). Well I guess the message here is there is no point playing to the chuckleheaded right wing about anything, because even if you do what they ask they'll just pretend you didn't anyway.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even by politifacts estimates there are 181 million radicalized Muslims. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals

Yes, I see how you could come away with that conclusion from "To be clear, we’re not saying there are 181 million radical Muslims".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
He shouldn't be commenting. Its a political football better left ignored because no matter how wrong he was to do it, damage done. No sense ensuring his next election victory before you get to impeach him. When clinton wouldn't even say the words islamic terrorism after the terrorist attack in orlando

This is at least the second bald-faced lie you've posted on this page of the thread.

", she all but handed trump the win. "


That's the part of the statement you cut out, sport. Seb already tried the out of context thing man.

How does the entire quote change in any way that you claimed she didn't say something she clearly and totally did? I mean, it's a totally, bald faced lie, completely blatant.

I avoided that unrelated snippet because it was needlessly political, and unlike you, I'm not working as hard as I can to get this thread locked for reasons known only to you.

We can drop it now. A user posted something, he was wrong, whether he retracts it after a page and a half of being bludgeoned with his error or not doesn't change whether this is or isn't on topic. Let's just make sure we drop the politics, drop any rudeness, and try and salvage this as best we can

Fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
We can drop it now. A user posted something, he was wrong, whether he retracts it after a page and a half of being bludgeoned with his error or not doesn't change whether this is or isn't on topic. Let's just make sure we drop the politics, drop any rudeness, and try and salvage this as best we can

I've reported seb for much the same, you'd do well to be unbias.

 Crablezworth wrote:
"suicide bombing as a military weapon ended in WWII" is literally what I'm saying good sir.


But I guess when you cut out the next sentence, which was "Of course not everyone has a standing army or billion dollar military assets. " you can look really virtuous and smug. Worst movie of the year "movie of the year" declares crab

So your point is that such weapons are no longer used in a context that wasn't in discussion. Okay.

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
"suicide bombing as a military weapon ended in WWII" is literally what I'm saying good sir.


But I guess when you cut out the next sentence, which was "Of course not everyone has a standing army or billion dollar military assets. " you can look really virtuous and smug. Worst movie of the year "movie of the year" declares crab

So your point is that such weapons are no longer used in a context that wasn't in discussion. Okay.

Last post, 5th page.


And I've beem shown to be in error about hillary's denouncement. Not her language. But I'll be an adult and not parse out every word she said to show I was technically correct, because she more or less denounced islmism, close enough to islamic terrorism.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think you'll find, perhaps in hindsight, you're far more emotionally invested in this. As for calling me a liar, well, that seems very polite.

I've no investment. Dude I've been doing this for years, you're not even the most annoying conversation I've got going right now. You should see the state of the conversation I'm having with my sister over that Charlottesville nazi murder being faked.

Or roll 2d100 and consult the indicated page of the old US politics thread

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
I think you'll find, perhaps in hindsight, you're far more emotionally invested in this. As for calling me a liar, well, that seems very polite.

I've no investment. Dude I've been doing this for years, you're not even the most annoying conversation I've got going right now. You should see the state of the conversation I'm having with my sister over that Charlottesville nazi murder being faked.

Seb, my man I never thought I'd be reporting you for rule one violations. But calling me a liar while literally playing tetris with my words. Full honesty, I thought the quotes you had pulled were all your own.

Last warning before I start kicking people out of the OT for 1-2 weeks.

Stop. Your. Petty. Rudeness.

Some users here really need to have a hard look at how they're posting. I was about to lock the thread, but no. I'll post this warning, and instead I'll be kicking users out of the OT, rather than taking the thread away from the people who are following the rules. Make smart, mature decisions with your posting and you'll get to stay. Refuse to do so and you're out of the OT.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even by politifacts estimates there are 181 million radicalized Muslims. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

No, they really didn't estimate that. In fact, they explicitly stated that the 181 million number is NOT an actual estimate. From the article:

To be clear, we’re not saying there are 181 million radical Muslims.

Please don't post false statements like this.

Also, "radical" doesn't mean that you are actively polishing your AK47 waiting to take out the next Christian/Jew/ American you see. It's more of a frame of mind.

The broader definition of "radical" is useless in this context. If "radical" refers to "political beliefs that diverge significantly from mine" rather than "extremist who uses or attempts to use violence against civilian targets in pursuit of their ideological goals" then you end up including way too many people, the vast majority of them having very little in common with the terrorists and posing very little threat to society. And once you have that broad definition why is it only applied to Muslim "radicals"? What about radical Christians, with their radical anti-LGBT ideology? Should we put all of them (or, even better, all Christians in general) on the terrorist watch lists because a tiny minority commit acts of violence against LGBT people? Or what about radical libertarians and their radical anti-state ideology? Remember those s who occupied federal property and threatened the police with their guns? Definitely need to put anyone who ever voted for a libertarian candidate on the terrorist watch list, they're clearly radicals.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If by "indifferent" you mean not being on dakka for a 30 hour period while a worked a full time job, slept, and did parental duties, sure, whatever.

No, I mean that I questioned the source, and in your response you attempted a justification of the number but didn't include a source for the figure. It would have been very weird for me to put in that reply any complaint that you would be absent for 30 hours after my post, because my ability to see in to the future is not that powerful.

Even by politifacts estimates there are 181 million radicalized Muslims. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

Heh, called it, it's just that absurd Ben Shapiro number. Anyhow, as I already said Ben Shapiro's claim is crap because having very conservative views is not the same thing as being radicalised. And as the article shows, Shapiro's work doesn't even do a good job of capturing the actually conservative portion of the population, because he doesn't know or doesn't care about the complexities of Islamic beliefs.

But more to the point, neither Ben Shapiro or politifact have either represented the current or former US government. So you claim of 400 million as a government figure is wrong in lots of ways.

Pew Research Center states that 8% of Muslims support Suicide bombing http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/ That's 360,000,000 according to them.

First up you need some work on your maths. For 8% to be 360,000,000 as you claim, you'd need there to be 4.5 billion muslims on the planet. There's 1.5 billion, so you're off by a factor of 3.

You second error comes from removing context, as you say support suicide bombing, when the actual statement was "are sometimes justified". So that would include people talking entirely about hypothetical, like if a foreign invader was literally going from town to town shooting people. Most populations would have 8% supporting suicide bombs in those situations.

So let's go with the actual worrisome amount, from your own link; "Just 1% of U.S. Muslims and a median of 3% of Muslims worldwide say suicide bombings and other violence against civilian targets are often justified" We'll even ignore that such lowball figures are often problematic and take the number at face value, 3% worldwide. Then we'll take the 1.5 billion muslims and multiply it by 3%, and we get 45m.

And so now we can stop, look back at your original claim, and then look at what your own figures have actually given us. You claimed official government figures state there's 400m radicalised muslims, but there's actually approximately 45m who have a view of suicide attacks that's leniant enough that would could consider them probably sympathetic to some terror groups.

And why did you link to quora?

Also, "radical" doesn't mean that you are actively polishing your AK47 waiting to take out the next Christian/Jew/ American you see. It's more of a frame of mind.

It's also a totally different issue. Let me put this very plainly - the chance that woman in the boonies of Pakistan might suffer an acid attack and local magistrates will show little interest in prosecuting is a serious problem and great human tragedy for people who suffer that bs. And it is directly caused by the teaching of a horrible interpretation of Islam in those areas.

But that issue not usefully discussed by linking it to terrorism. Discussion of both issues suffers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Last post, 5th page.

You raising an issue out of the blue, having it not responded to, and then you mentioning it again doesn't make it part of the conversation.

 sebster wrote:
You might have noticed most of the attacks happen in those countries.

Yep. Terrorism attacks in western countries are by far only tip of the iceberg. Most of those happens funnily enough in their home lands...That's why there's people fleeing from. You don't want to get involved in terrorism attack no doubt. Why anybody would think muslims would like to get hit by one either...But they are. Going back expose you to more of those. And people are asking why they don't go back to home...Gee. Maybe avoiding getting killed by bomb?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Seb, my man I never thought I'd be reporting you for rule one violations. But calling me a liar while literally playing tetris with my words.

Dude, I can walk around the issue with other words if you want. I mean people use 'strawman' and that seems to be a more polite version, but the reality is what it is. You claimed no-one gave other factors than Islam, when many people have given reasons, often in direct response to you, and often in posts you replied to. When I compiled those possible other reasons, you claimed that meant I knew the man's mind because listing possible reasons means saying you know exactly what those reasons were. And while all this went you continued to claim that discussing the importance of other factors means denying that Islam was a factor at all, despite being told repeatedly that people were trying to discuss Islam within the context of other factors that can lead to attacks like this.

How would you describe someone who performs like that in a thread? How would you address them to get them to focus on the actual things people are saying to them?

Full honesty, I thought the quotes you had pulled were all your own.

Honest mistake, and I probably should have made it clear I was grabbing everyone's quotes to show you what you'd been ignoring. Thanks for admitting your error on that one.

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Seb, my man I never thought I'd be reporting you for rule one violations. But calling me a liar while literally playing tetris with my words.

Dude, I can walk around the issue with other words if you want. I mean people use 'strawman' and that seems to be a more polite version, but the reality is what it is. You claimed no-one gave other factors than Islam, when many people have given reasons, often in direct response to you, and often in posts you replied to. When I compiled those possible other reasons, you claimed that meant I knew the man's mind because listing possible reasons means saying you know exactly what those reasons were. And while all this went you continued to claim that discussing the importance of other factors means denying that Islam was a factor at all, despite being told repeatedly that people were trying to discuss Islam within the context of other factors that can lead to attacks like this.

I was corrected about the death toll from sweden. I was corrected about hillary denouncing "islamism" , although in that case to call me a liar is false, the words "Islamic terrorism" never left her mouth. But I can see that's splitting hairs. And I'm happy still to have been informed and look silly than not to have. And seb, I kept posting updates with more evidence that every time added to the islam portion and was oddly met with reduction at every new fact.

 sebster wrote:
How would you describe someone who performs like that in a thread? How would you address them to get them to focus on the actual things people are saying to them?

I've been attempting to calm things, even going so far as to apologize formally in pm. How would you describe your actions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Full honesty, I thought the quotes you had pulled were all your own.

Honest mistake, and I probably should have made it clear I was grabbing everyone's quotes to show you what you'd been ignoring. Thanks for admitting your error on that one.

Sometimes that moves others to acknowledge their errors.

 Crablezworth wrote:
I was corrected about the death toll from sweden. I was corrected about hillary denouncing "islamism" , although in that case to call me a liar is false, the words "Islamic terrorism" never left her mouth. But I can see that's splitting hairs. And I'm happy still to have been informed and look silly than not to have. And seb, I kept posting updates with more evidence that every time added to the islam portion and was oddly met with reduction at every new fact.

The 15 to 5 deaths in Sweden wasn't really much of a big deal, don't worry about that. I mean we're in thread where 400m was an official government number that ended up being 45m if we are willing to make a pretty loose interpretation of a single poll, so I wouldn't worry about that one too much.

Credit for conceding your mistake on Clinton's comment.

As to the rest, I've been consistent from my first post to the last the 'it was because Islam' is not a good answer, because many other factors also play a role. It has been painstaking to get you to address that actual argument. Instead you've denied that people have listed other factors, then claimed that listing other possible factors meant knowing the attacker's mind.

I've been attempting to calm things, even going so far as to apologize formally in pm. How would you describe your actions?

Non-generous, possibly even scathing, but always to the point and always honest.

 sebster wrote:
As to the rest, I've been consistent from my first post to the last the 'it was because Islam' is not a good answer, because many other factors also play a role.

And you are right in that it's not as simple as that.

Many ISIS commanders are former officers of Saddam Hussein's army left without a job when the Iraqi army was disbanded after the US invasion. They had a (somewhat) safe job and steady income, then the Americans came and took it all away. So what are you to do when you need money and all you know is military? Maybe join whatever group is willing to employ a Sunni muslim for some military work, hmm? IIRC many of the ISIS higher-ups are scared of the really fanatic foreign volunteers, especially Chechnyans - many of the leaders are in the terror business for pure gain, not because they actually care too much about this "religion" thing beyond looting rights.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It's a shame we can't have a reasonable debate about the factors influencing terrorism without being accused of a terrorist hugging circle jerk by the 'blame all the Muslims' faction.

There is no 'blame all Moslems' faction. That is the lie PC apologists claim because of an inability cannot handle the actual opinions, and the naked truth that there is a serious problem, and appeasement isnt the answer.

Actually there is. In this thread we have had people so focused on Islam that they are discounting or dismissing any other factor that might influence these terrorists. If Islam has that much of an impact that it can be claimed as the sole factor of worth then you have to consider all people who have Islam as their religion a risk. So no, its not a 'PC apologist lie', its the basic reduction of what dismissing any other factor besides Islam means. Islam plays its part, but its not the end all explanation some would have us believe. That is the naked truth, something which some seem very unwilling to accept.

Lets also not pretend that there isn't a sizeable minority of people in the real world that sees no difference between Islam/muslims=terrorists. They certainly exist, claiming those biggots don't gets us no where. So maybe its some others who can't handle "actual opinions, and the naked truth".

I do not understand how you can say there is a serious problem with Muslims, and in the next breath say that you aren't blaming Muslims, and it is all caused by "PC gone mad".

As a 'PC apologist' (apparently, I'm assuming it means 'anyone who calls out blatant and mindless bigoty'), I absolutely can 'handle your opinion', I just happen to think it's not based on fact and reality, but instead a paranoid fantasy induced by consuming tripe like Das Daily Heil.

There isn't a serious problem with Islamic Extremism. There is a problem, sure. But it's no more serious than the IRA, ETA or other international terrorist groups.