Newtons third law of terrorism ?

First of all yes I realize the comparison is somewhat in jest. But we are all familiar with newtons third law of motion .

" Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body".

Taken literally this law could not apply . But looking at it figuratively I can draw a comparison .

Some supporters of radical Islam have made it a point to bring violence into the workplace to prove their faith . My first example is today's attack in France .

The assailant rammed his delivery van into a warehouse containing gas canisters, triggering an initial explosion, and was arrested minutes later as he tried to open canisters containing flammable chemicals, prosecutors said on Friday. Police found the head of the victim, the 54-year-old manager of the transport firm that employed the suspect, dangling from a fence. "The head was discovered hanging on the factory's wire fence, framed by two flags that included references to the shahada, or (Muslim) profession of faith," Paris public prosecutor Francois Molins told a news conference.

Man beheads boss in workplace

The following is a instance in which claims aren't initially made to terrorism. But the style of attack is very similar, and many people are offended it was described as workplace violence .

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Police say the man who beheaded a woman with a knife at an Oklahoma food processing plant had tried to convert several employees there to Islam.

Oklahoma food plant beheading


Here's one more ......

The Fort Hood attack

On November 5, 2009, a mass murder took place at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] The shooting produced more casualties than any other on an American military base.[4][5] Several individuals, including Senator Joe Lieberman,[6] General Barry McCaffrey,[7] and others have called the event a terrorist attack.[8][9] The United States Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies have classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence.[10]

source

Those are the first three I know of off the top of my head. I'm interested to see if there are connections in other attacks around the world?

Now newtons third law requires for every action a equal and opposite reaction .


Would a equal and opposite reaction of discriminating in employment against the followers of Islam because of a limited number of zelots. Be seen as protecting people in the workplace or discriminating against people in the workplace ? The threat is there, in a subgroup of one of the largest branches of religion in the world. ( where do we set the standard ?)

The same reasoning could be applied on eligibility to enter places of education where our children gather.

In March 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-American, intentionally, as he confessed, hit people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. While no one was killed in the terror ramming attack, nine people were injured (none seriously).

source

The same rationale could also be applied to places of worship.

SEATTLE, July 29 — A day after a gunman killed one woman and wounded five others in the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, the police identified a Muslim man on Saturday as the suspect and said he used the Internet to select the federation as a random target for his anger toward Jews.

source


One of the oddist things I find about many of these incidents . Is that despite claims to the contrary by the perpetrators. The government agencies refuse to call many of them terrorist attacks. Instead they use the term's workplace violence and hate crime.


I myself do not think we have reached this point yet . But if the trend continues my position might be swayed . If acts of violence are perpetrated by individuals in the name of a religion. I do not think people should be surprised when people of that religion are singled out for extar scrutiny .

Please don't flame me. My position on this subject is not settled I am merrily bringing it up for discussion.

a reply to: Greathouse

Equal and opposite reaction. This means you'd have to do exactly what ISIS did but apply it in the opposite direction at them. I don't think that's a good idea.

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Greathouse

Equal and opposite reaction. This means you'd have to do exactly what ISIS did but apply it in the opposite direction at them. I don't think that's a good idea.

I understand that and as I said in my post I was looking at it figuratively not literally .

The reaction hasn't been instantaneous. And terrorists aren't really balls of rock in space, as much as I would like them to be so.

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Greathouse

Equal and opposite reaction. This means you'd have to do exactly what ISIS did but apply it in the opposite direction at them. I don't think that's a good idea.

Or would it mean you'd have to start putting heads on people because they are cutting them off???

a reply to: Greathouse

Of course. However, discrimination would play into the hands of ISIS. It would create this "us vs them" image and you know what happens after that. More will join them thinking that ISIS wants them. By the time they blow themselves up,it would be too late for them to realize that ISIS was just using them for their own needs.

a reply to: Boeing777

discrimination would play into the hands of ISIS. It would create this "us vs them" image

First off thanks for a intelligent reply to my question . I honestly had not considered that aspect of it . It would drawl a drastic line .