Toulouse murders stagger the French

[Roasted Cashew]

As bad as their system is, surely they train them to shoot suspects whom they need to question in a way to take them down and not completely kill them unless of course they wanted them silenced

Again, you are ignoring the fact that he shot and wounded 3 policemen and was shot dead while shooting at the police while jumping out of the window. He was asked to surrender. Why didn't he surrender then if he was innocent and why did he shot at the police. You are also ignoring what his brother has to say.

 

[جوري]

Again, you are ignoring the fact that he shot and wounded 3 policemen and was shot dead while shooting at the police while jumping out of the window. He was asked to surrender. Why didn't he surrender then if he was innocent and why did he shot at the police. You are also ignoring what his brother has to say.

Maybe he didn't take his olanzapine that morning? Maybe someone paid off his family a large sum for him to self-immolate, maybe he was a little crazy, maybe he did it for his best friend or to cover for his brother, maybe maybe the possibilities are endless, but we will never know. If you're in the habit of denying folks their due process because you like to pose and answer sophomoric questions then there's no point for you to engage in any topic that requires some thought whatsoever. I am not in the habit of turning a one page topic into four. Heck I didn't see you waste that any time on the 32 year old mother of five who was beaten to death for being Muslim. Truly one wonders what ails you? I can understand when it comes from a moronic kaffir but why choose to put Islam in your profile when you have nothing but condemnation & suspicion?
You also repeatedly omit the fact that some of those killed by him 'allegedly' are Muslims-- is that in the agenda of a Muslim who wishes to exact his revenge on Jews?

best,

 

[Roasted Cashew]

but we will never know

Because he chose NOT to surrender.

Truly one wonders what ails you.

What ails me is Americans trying to justify the killings of 16 Afghan civilians by a rouge soldier but what ails me even more is my fellow Muslims defending and justifying someone who killed innocent people.

32 year old mother of five who was beaten to death for being Muslim.

That is indeed a heinous attack and the killer needs to be apprehended. But in that story we don't have a suspect yet. And I am one of those who believe we ought to clean our own houses first, before pointing garbage in others'.

 

[جوري]

clean our own houses first, before pointing garbage in others'.

You do that, clean your house!

best,

 

[Roasted Cashew]

You do that, clean your house!

HAHA. :exhausted

 

[Pygoscelis]

The fact that there are bad apples among the Muslims who deliberately target innocent civilians because of their hardcore brainwashed violent ideology and interpretation of Islam.

There are such people involved with pretty much any religion or ideology (including secular humanism to which I subscribe). We should dissociate from them, not allow them to twist said religion/ideology and we should condemn them and call them what they are. But tribalism too often takes over as people decide that one of "us" can do no wrong and "they" can do no right. According to what you have written (I haven't followed this story) you've got a guy shooting at police and they take him down. Because he was a muslim people here are painting him as the good guy. Now imagine he wasn't a muslim but was instead a homosexual atheist or jew... think you'd be having the same argument here?

What ails me is Americans trying to justify the killings of 16 Afghan civilians by a rouge soldier but what ails me even more is my fellow Muslims defending and justifying someone who killed innocent people.

Well put. Both should be condemned. I'm not going to stand behind somebody just because they are my race, gender, countryman, share my political or religious views, etc.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Now imagine he wasn't a muslim but was instead a homosexual atheist or jew... think you'd be having the same argument here?

Exactly! That is my whole point. We are eager to attack when "others" commit atrocities but then fall back into our shells when one of "ours" does the same.

 

[GuestFellow]

Most Muslims from my experience do acknowledge other Muslims do commit sins like rape, murder, mass killings of civilians, theft, robbery, fraud and so on . For example, most Muslims acknowledge we have corrupt Muslim leaders, that Muslim armies have committed atrocities (like the Pakistani military killing Bangladeshis), Egyptian security forces using torture against civilians, some Muslims target civilians to achieve a political goal and so on. Some Muslims also acknowledge problems such as mistreatment of women, Jews, Christians, other minorities and so on.

However, even since 9/11 and the Iraq war, some Muslims have began to doubt information coming from the government. They've told us incorrect information before, so it is likely they will do it again. At times, there have been inconsistencies with the government's version of events. These incidents where innocent civilians get killed do occur at a time that is politically or financially convenient for certain groups of people. So it does cast doubt on information the mainstream media presents which comes from the government.

I'll admit, some Muslims are too quick to accept information that makes non-Muslims look bad from the mainstream media. For example, a soldier has killed some Afghan civilians. They are quick to accept this from the mainstream media and are less likely to question it, than compared to a Muslim soldier killing Afghan civilians.

What we need is a consistent approach to examining these issues. I always assume a person is innocent until proven guilty. If the person dies prior to a fair trial, then examining the information available, I tend to make a logical guess about whether the person has committed a crime, but I'm not certain.

In this case, I'd say it is very likely he killed innocent civilians and I'm awaiting for more information to be released. At one point, after the issue has died completely, I will assume that the person has committed the crime.

So let's try to avoid getting aggressive when having a discussion. Take a chill pill, even though I acknowledge this is a sensitive topic.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

some Muslims are too quick to accept information that makes non-Muslims look bad from the mainstream media. For example, a soldier has killed some Afghan civilians. They are quick to accept this from the mainstream media and are less likely to question it, than compared to a Muslim soldier killing Afghan civilians.

You are absolutely right there. The hypocrisy is so blatant, it irks me.

 

[TrueStranger]

I'll admit, some Muslims are too quick to accept information that makes non-Muslims look bad from the mainstream media. For example, a soldier has killed some Afghan civilians. They are quick to accept this from the mainstream media and are less likely to question it, than compared to a Muslim soldier killing Afghan civilians.

Are you talking about the same media that depicted the American terrorist that killed 16 afghan civilians as mentally strained, without any psychological analysis? The same media that refused to investigate whether or not the soldier acted alone, especially, when they reported eyewitnesses that saw a group of soldiers at the beginning?

 

[جوري]

Are you talking about the same media that depicted the American terrorist that killed 16 afghan civilians as mentally strained, without any psychological analysis? The same media that refused to investigate whether or not the soldier acted alone, especially, when they reported eyewitnesses that saw a group of soldiers at the beginning?

When the post descends down to an unctuous self-righteous display courtesy of a couple of Tartuffes you know it is time to unsubscribe.
As Ali ibn Abu Talib once stated, never argue with a fool, they take you down to their level and beat you with experience!
I wouldn't bother, people have made their mindset and intentions clear from the get go and no amount of reason will abstract a linear brain..

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Are you talking about the same media that depicted the American terrorist that killed 16 afghan civilians as mentally strained, without any psychological analysis? The same media that refused to investigate whether or not the soldier acted alone, especially, when they reported eyewitnesses that saw a group of soldiers at the beginning?

Investigative journalism in the true sense is pretty dead today. And so much more in a volatile and dangerous region like Afghanistan. Well, maybe not dead entirely...you can see a lot of documentaries on Al-Jazeera though. Anyway, such investigations should be done jointly by Nato and Afghan authorities not journalists. Besides, the media reported what the lawyer of that soldier said that he has PSTD. So, you don't want the media to report what you don't like but only report what you want to hear?? That's not how it works. If an Iranian had done something like this, PRESS TV would be the first to report what the defendant's lawyer had to say. No media is free of some sort of bias and sensationalism. Doesn't mean we have to shut ourselves in a closet.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

never argue with a fool, they take you down to their level and beat you with experience!

people have made their mindset and intentions clear from the get go and no amount of reason will abstract a linear brain..

I can say the same thing to you. But I won't. Take a chill pill sis. Why are you always raging. :raging: and angry.

 

[TrueStranger]

Investigative journalism in the true sense is pretty dead today. And so much more in a volatile and dangerous region like Afghanistan. Well, maybe not dead entirely...you can see a lot of documentaries on Al-Jazeera though. Anyway, such investigations should be done jointly by Nato and Afghan authorities not journalists. Besides, the media reported what the lawyer of that soldier said that he has PSTD. So, you don't want the media to report what you don't like but only report what you want to hear?? That's not how it works. If an Iranian had done something like this, PRESS TV would be the first to report what the defendant's lawyer had to say. No media is free of some sort of bias and sensationalism. Doesn't mean we have to shut ourselves in a closet.

A lawyer? We are supposed to believe the words of a lawyer whose main objective is to create defense claims out of thin air (By the way the terrorist’s own wife said he didn’t have PTSD). Just look at the terminology the media uses. Terms such as terrorist, extremist, and radical/ization are solely reserved to describe certain individuals, mainly Muslims these days. Investigative journalism is not dead, it decided to investigate and scrutinize some matters and sugarcoat other matters pertaining to the West. Deep within its core lie double standards, which become visible in their reporting and conveying of world news. It’s not about incompetence or lack of investigation. The media’s job is to propagate the matters of the state. The claim that no media is free of bias and sensationalism does not change the fact that the Western media industry is structured to function in a manner that reconstructs reality to justify their military, economic, and politic policies. And everyone knows that Press TV does not have the same number of audience as BBC, CNN, and the AP who has about 300 locations worldwide. The idea is to know, not shut yourself in a closet. This is not the first time they played the “mentally retarded” card, and it won’t be the last.

 

[جوري]

The media’s job is to propagate the matters of the state

It is hard to imagine amidst the omnipresence of discourse currently on Islam that a mere three decades ago, Islam had been a marginal concern situated on the periphery of western consciousness.
If ever encountered in press reports during the cold war, it would most likely have been in the figure of the "mujahideen" confronting the Empire of Evil in Afghanistan. Islam appeared as a benign ally of the forces of freedom camped in New York and London.
What finally brought it to the heart of Euro-American preoccupations were the events that occured on 9/11.
Islam became a local and globalised issue at once, transmitted in countless daily images across the globe.
Since then, rarely does a day go by without hearing, reading, or watching reports of a terrifying Muslim-related event. The presence of Muslim minorities within western capitals has further complicated things, aggravating the intricate interplay of the local and the global.
Fears of a perpetual Muslim danger overlapped with deep-seated fears of immigrants, aliens, and strangers.
Explicating the truth
Coverage of Islam has turned into an industry specialising in the engineering of images, scenes, and messages.
In a globalised world governed by the power of the image, the question is no longer what has sparked this event or that incident and how it has unfolded on the ground, but how it gets captured by the camera and reported to viewers, listeners, and readers at home.
Some might argue, that the media merely reports what is already in existence. However things are not so straightforward in the real world. For the lens is neither neutral nor objective.
It is subject to a set of pre-defined choices and calculations that decide what we see and do not see, know and do not know.
The media is not a mirror reflecting what is out there. Its role is not simple, passive transmission, but active creation, shaping, and manufacturing, through a lengthy process of selection, filtering, interpretation, and editing.
The hidden arms that hold the reins of our media - the giant news corporations and their masters - are not benign charities driven by the love of humanity.
Paradigms of dissemination
Of the 57 countries in the vast geographic and cultural expanse known as the Muslim world, some are rich, others poor; some royal, others republican; some conservative, others liberal; some stable, others less so; some where women preside over the state, others that deny them the right to vote; some that oppress in the name of religion, others that do so in the name of secularism...etc
But this strikingly varied mosaic is absent from mainstream coverage of the subject. What is compound, complex, diverse, and multi-faceted turns into a plain surface without depth, reduced to a narrow set of narratives about blood-thirsty terrorists, shouting mobs, black turbans, battered wives, and caged daughters.
The Muslim world becomes a silent object that does not speak, but is spoken for, an anonymous background against which stands the reporter dispatched from the metropolis.
S/he is the agent of understanding, the one who deciphers this strange entity's mysterious codes and uncovers its secrets for us; the one who gives it meaning, truth and order.
Nowhere is this will to superficiality and reductionism more evident than in reports of conflicts in the Middle East.
Viewers are given a few minutes during which they watch and hear descriptions of wreckage, smoke, burnt cars, scorched bodies, severed limbs, blood, and wailing widows.
With no attempt to explain the underlying causes and histories of the crises in question, the reports merely compound existing misunderstanding.
The confusion is such that roles are often reversed, with the victim mistaken for the oppressor.
Prisms of perception
This is confirmed by a number of studies, such as the one conducted following the Palestinian Intifada by Greg Philo and Mike Berry of the Glasgow University Group.
The researchers monitored hours of BBC and ITV coverage of the 2002 Intifada, examined 200 news programmes, and interviewed over 800 people about their perceptions of the conflict .
The researchers encountered an alarming level of ignorance and confusion among the viewers, of whom only 9 per cent knew that the "occupied territories" were occupied by Israel, with the majority believing that the Palestinians were the occupiers.
This is hardly surprising given the unbalanced coverage and its tendency to obscure the central truths in the conflict: It does not tell us that over 418 Palestinian villages were destroyed in 1948, that their inhabitants were expelled in their hundreds of thousands, that Israel was largely established by force on 78 per cent of historic Palestine, that since 1967 it has illegally occupied and imposed various forms of military rule on the remaining 22 per cent, or that the majority of Palestinians - over 8 million - live as refugees today.
Reports of the Iraq war do not fare better. The viewer is given the impression that the country's ills are rooted in its people's bloodthirstiness and love of self-mutilation, with one sect and ethnicity vying for the other's destruction.
The Americans emerge as benign mediators whose role consists in imposing order and preventing the different groups from exterminating each other.
The causes of the ongoing state of chaos are increasingly being brushed under the carpet, viz the 150,000 strong army deployed to invade a country hundreds of miles away, the destruction of its infrastructure, systematic demolition of its national collective memory, desecration of its cultural heritage, erection of an ethnic and sectarian based political system, dissolution of its army in the name of "de-baathisation", and arming of one faction against the other - first the Kurdish Peshmarga, then the Shia militias in the name of "confronting the Sunni triangle", and finally al-Anbar's Sunni tribes under the pretext of combating Al Qaeda.
What the media reports do not tell us is that Iraqis continue to suffer not because they are Arabs, Muslims, brown-skinned, or followers of an "inherently violent" religious culture, but because they are the victims of a heartless power game that saw them as little more than insects, worthless creatures to trample on without bothering to count the dead.
The west seems to have created its own "machinery of truth" about Islam, Muslims, Arabs, and the Middle East.
Through it the lens is directed and small narratives are produced and reproduced ad infinitum.
The titles and headlines may vary, but they lead back to a narrow ring of notions that define Muslim society in the eyes of manufacturer and domesticated consumer alike.
These boil down to violence, fanaticism, irrationality, emotiveness, stagnation, subordination, and despotism. They are the pillars of an orthodoxy, which is popularised by the media and bolstered by a complex network of power centres and institutions.
To defy it is to place oneself outside the mainstream and within the margins, alongside outsiders, heretics, and truth monsters.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201112611591745716.html

 

[TrueStranger]

I can say the same thing to you. But I won't. Take a chill pill sis. Why are you always raging. :raging: and angry.

Honestly, it is painful to know that as Muslims we are unable to even know one of the names of the seventeen innocent Afghans killed by this man. The NY Times listed the names and ages of the Toulouse murder.

No one condones the killings of innocent people regardless of their nationality, race, or religion. However, is it a result of journalist incompetence that the deaths of Muslims are reported using numeric digits and those of Western or Israel origins are named and positively identified?


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/world/middleeast/toulouse-shooting-victims-buried-in-israel.html

 

[Roasted Cashew]

A lawyer? We are supposed to believe the words of a lawyer whose main objective is to create defense claims out of thin air

I didn't say we have to believe anything the lawyer says. I just said, they reported what he said. It's up to you to believe the lawyer or not.

Terms such as terrorist, extremist, and radical/ization are solely reserved to describe certain individuals, mainly Muslims these days.

extremist/radical - there is no evidence that this soldier was driven by any type of radical/extreme ideology. So the media is right in not using those terms for him.

Terrorist:
a) A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
b) the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
c) a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
d) a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

So yes, according to some of the definitions above, he is indeed a terrorist and the media is wrong to only stick with certain definitions and ignoring others. Again I said and acknowledged that the media is biased.

The idea is to know

I know. I get you.

structured to function in a manner that reconstructs reality to justify their military, economic, and politic policies.

Maybe you are not paying enough attention. Their media constantly criticizes their countries' economic and political policies. And also I think the same media actually leaked the Abu Gharib torture pics and scrutinized water boarding. So, yes they are not angels, but give credit where it is due. And before criticizing them, have a look at our own media outlets in our Muslim countries. My country, Pakistan is blessed with a free media which acts as a watchdog to the government and the army but the same can't be said about other Muslim countries where the media is basically the spokesperson for dictators or authoritarian regimes.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

However, is it a result of journalist incompetence that the deaths of Muslims are reported using numeric digits and those of Western or Israel origins are named and positively identified?

If not mistaken, Al-Jazeera was the first to report their names.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/asia/2012/03/19/no-one-asked-their-names

Albeit a bit slow, western media outlets did follow suit:

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/24/opinion/afghanistan-innocent-victims/index.html?iref=allsearch

CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_...-the-afghan-victims-sons-and-daughters-alike/

 

[TrueStranger]

If not mistaken, Al-Jazeera was the first to report their names.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/asia/2012/03/19/no-one-asked-their-names

Albeit a bit slow, western media outlets did follow suit:

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/24/opinion/afghanistan-innocent-victims/index.html?iref=allsearch

CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_...-the-afghan-victims-sons-and-daughters-alike/

CNN: I have been traveling back-and-forth to developing nations my entire life and for years I have now lived in one, India. As a journalist, reader and citizen, it is my clear impression that victims of tragedies in developing nations are not given anywhere near the same coverage or attention as victims in developed nations by the international press.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

CNN: I have been traveling back-and-forth to developing nations my entire life and for years I have now lived in one, India. As a journalist, reader and citizen, it is my clear impression that victims of tragedies in developing nations are not given anywhere near the same coverage or attention as victims in developed nations by the international press.

That is true indeed. The fact that a journalist working for a media outlet of a developed country says that and it gets published, speaks loads for that media outlet. It realizes and acknowledges it's shortcomings. Let's hope they now work to overcome their shortcomings. Publishing the names of these Afghan victims is the step in the right direction.