<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Extremism and Terrorism</title>
	<link>http://blog.khalidzaheer.com/posts/20</link>
	<description>Dr. Khalid Zaheer's views and logs on various issues.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Farhan Haleem Qureshi</title>
		<link>http://blog.khalidzaheer.com/posts/20#comment-12571</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 19:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.khalidzaheer.com/posts/20#comment-12571</guid>
					<description>I don't know why did the writer first generalizes all terrorists as extremists by saying "all terrorists were  extremists" and later in the sentence after the very next he refutes himself by talking about the likelihood of a non-extremist resorting to terrorism. The statement that a non-extremist is not likely to resort to terrorism suggests that there is a chance (no matter how remote it may be) that a non-extremist may actually become a terrorist. I suggest to either restructure the sentences or to rethink the whole idea about who can be a terrorist and who can't.

Secondly, I believe this article has limited the scope of terrorism to religiously incited terrorism (or in other words, terrorists with religious backgrounds). Other kinds of terrorism do exist. Mere act of display of arms in front of poor and weak to terrorize is a very simple and obvious act of terrorism, hence the subject of this act are terrorists who may or may not have any religious inclination or background.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know why did the writer first generalizes all terrorists as extremists by saying &#8220;all terrorists were  extremists&#8221; and later in the sentence after the very next he refutes himself by talking about the likelihood of a non-extremist resorting to terrorism. The statement that a non-extremist is not likely to resort to terrorism suggests that there is a chance (no matter how remote it may be) that a non-extremist may actually become a terrorist. I suggest to either restructure the sentences or to rethink the whole idea about who can be a terrorist and who can&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Secondly, I believe this article has limited the scope of terrorism to religiously incited terrorism (or in other words, terrorists with religious backgrounds). Other kinds of terrorism do exist. Mere act of display of arms in front of poor and weak to terrorize is a very simple and obvious act of terrorism, hence the subject of this act are terrorists who may or may not have any religious inclination or background.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
