The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.

[sister herb]

Double standards...

 

[glo]

Like for example; beheading in UK was terrorism (if criminals were muslims), but attacks against muslims and mosques after that are just hate-crimes, not acts of terrorism?

I am trying to find out more about this, but I should get ready for work soon and don't have much time.

It seems to me (according to the definition I posted earlier) that terrorism tries to attack the nation/government/society as a whole. It makes a political statement and tries to damage society as it is (either through physical/economical damage or by instilling fear)

A hate crime is a crime against a particular group.

I can see that there is a difference in terms of definition.
The outcome for all parties involved, the fear, the damage and the hurt are of course the same.

I am sure there are legal difference too, but I don't know much about that ...

 

[glo]

Perhaps it is about intent too?

If one man is killed for whatever reason, that's a terrible tragedy and a terrible crime! But if the attacker is actually saying "We are after all of you. We hate your society, your values and how you run your country" - then it is much more than just an attack on ONE MAN.
It's a threat to everybody.

 

[sister herb]

As well situation is same if attackers are far-right extremists, whose don´t attack against some single muslim (in this case in the UK) but against muslims in general. They give message by they actions like:

"We are after all of you. We hate your community, your values and how you live in this country"

In any way, unfortunately, like usually, innocents will suffer by the acts of few extremists - by the both sides.

 

[جوري]

Oh yeah?!? What about the people who were responsible for four centuries of the trans atlantic slave trade, which resulted in the deaths of 10 million Africans?!

Oh.......oops. Same team :embarrass.

In fact when Christians are out exterminating one another it's muslims that come in to save them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

 

[the_stranger]

As anti-Christian as I am... can we really say all of that was because of the Christian religion? I think religion acts as a tool to make it easier, but the root of it is the mere corruption of power. Had the situation been reversed, I have little doubt that the tribes the europeans whiped out would have done the same to the european tribes, and justify it with their own religions.

I feel this must be addressed.

First: I am not anti-Christian. I'm anti-genocide, but surely not anti-Christian.
Second:I have very much doubt that the Native tribes would have done the same thing to the Europeans. We know this from European accounts. When Cortez landed in what is now Mexico, the Aztecs brought him and his men massive amounts of gold, silver, food, and other treasures. Do you know how Cortez thanked them? He would invite the heads of the tribes to meet in the center of their city. When these leaders would arrive, they would normally bring a great number, sometimes thousands, of unarmed followers. Cortez then ordered his army to surround them with cannons, crossbows, and men mounted on horses.

I'll let you guess what happens next. Here's a hint; it rhymes with daughter.

I agree with you that the root of these awful events was corruption and power, but it would be a crime to suggest that everyone was as vicious and bloodthirsty as the "civilized" Europeans.

 

[the_stranger]

In fact when Christians are out exterminating one another it's muslims that come in to save them:

Just in case my post was misunderstood, I was merely pointing out that the trans-atlantic slave trade is yet another bloody page in American history. Even though it is tragically true that many African tribes were pitted against each other during this time, I don't think many (if any) of them were Christian. In fact, a great number of the slaves who were brought to the American colonies were Muslim. There is a wonderful PBS documentary called A Prince Among Slaves, which addresses this very topic. Definitely worth watching! As a black-American, who is descended from slaves, I often feel that Islam was stolen from my ancestors.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks for the link to that article! It made me think that maybe it would be nice to have a forum that is dedicated to discussing history. Not arguing about history, but instead sharing stories that have been largely forgotten by the world. As we all know, history is written by the victors, so we could do our part to make sure that all of the suffering people have gone through, at various times in various places, is not forgotten. Just a thought.

 

[Independent]

As recent as the 19th century, european colonials genocide over 40 million indigenous Australians before taking over their contient.

Your video doesn't play but the figures you quote here can't be right. The total Aboriginal population of Australia at the time of the coming of Europeans is estimated at 0.5 to 0.75 million. Even today there are only about 22 million Australians. For a mostly hunter gatherer society, 40 million would be a big estimate for the entire world population.

Your Americas figure is more possible although still very high - most estimates say about 50 million.

The European invasions were certainly bad news but, bad as they were, by far the biggest cause of death was disease. The Conquistadors were successful in conquering the rest of the country partly because death by disease was as high as 90% in some areas. In fact, even if the Conquistadors had been a bunch of peace loving hippies (and they were very far from that) they would still have wiped out most of the population without knowing it.

From a theological viewpoint (which I don't share) an interesting question would be why God made the American Indians susceptible to unknown European diseases, but not the other way round (with the possible minor exception of syphilis).

 

[the_stranger]

The European invasions were certainly bad news but, bad as they were, by far the biggest cause of death was disease. The Conquistadors were successful in conquering the rest of the country partly because death by disease was as high as 90% in some areas. In fact, even if the Conquistadors had been a bunch of peace loving hippies (and they were very far from that) they would still have wiped out most of the population without knowing it.

Wow.

So, it was the Natives' fault for being slaughtered? That's what they get for not having strong enough immune systems to deal with diseases that they have never been exposed to?

It's nice to see that there is always someone willing to apologize for, and try to justify mass murder. Thanks to people like you, we see genocide happen again and again throughout history .

Maybe next you can explain why it was the Jews' fault for being exterminated by the Nazis.

 

[Independent]

So, it was the Natives' fault for being slaughtered? That's what they get for not having strong enough immune systems to deal with diseases that they have never been exposed to?

That is absolutely not what i said.

Maybe next you can explain why it was the Jews' fault for being exterminated by the Nazis.

There are more than enough people out there already doing just that.

 

[the_stranger]

That is absolutely not what i said.

Then please explain further. It sure seems like you think this entire period in history wasn't really a big deal. I feel like "get over it" is on the tip of your tongue. Would I be wrong if I guessed that you are a white, male, European?

There are more than enough people out there already doing just that.

Interesting that you don't say that these people are wrong...

 

[Independent]

Then please explain further. It sure seems like you think this entire period in history wasn't really a big deal. I feel like "get over it" is on the tip of your tongue.

If you say that the Conquistadors were brutal, acquisitive and vicious I would agree with you. But if someone says they wiped out 50 million indigenous Americans, that's wrong. Disease killed vastly more people than the Conquistadors. It is the direct reason they conquered a vast continent so easily.

(By the way, another reason is that they were not alone. Many Indian tribes allied with the Spanish. You may say that was a dumb move on their part, but that's what they did.)

For me, this death by disease has no moral aspect. It was an accident of geography and human development. A religious person may feel the need to 'explain' it morally and perhaps they would indeed therefore have to 'blame' the Indians for their own demise. For me, disease is amoral.

Interesting that you don't say that these people are wrong...

There are people on this forum who believe that the Jews arranged their own holocaust. I'm not one of them. I think it was the single worst crime in human history (even if it wasn't the single largest death toll).

 

[the_stranger]

If you say that the Conquistadors were brutal, acquisitive and vicious I would agree with you. But if someone says they wiped out 50 million indigenous Americans, that's wrong. Disease killed vastly more people than the Conquistadors. It is the direct reason they conquered a vast continent so easily.

Your logic is fascinating. Can I give it a try?

So.....the Nazis didn't kill the Jews, it was the gas chambers that killed the Jews. And it wasn't the American military that killed 200,000+ Japanese civilians, it was the atomic bombs. And it wasn't the Spanish who killed over three million indigenous people in Hispaniola, it was the war and slavery. And it wasn't the American military that burned Vietnamese villagers alive, it was the Napalm. And it wasn't the Hutus who systematically murdered Tutsis, it was the AK-47's. And it wasn't Stalin and his thugs who murdered over twenty million Russians, it was the famine. And it wasn't Mao Zedong and his followers who killed over thirty million people, it was the Great Leap Forward. And it wasn't the Khmer Rouge who destroyed twenty percent of Cambodia's population, it was the famine and malaria.

Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this! Thanks, Independent!

 

[Independent]

Your logic is fascinating. Can I give it a try?

Try harder.

So.....the Nazis didn't kill the Jews, it was the gas chambers that killed the Jews. And it wasn't the American military that killed 200,000+ Japanese civilians, it was the atomic bombs. And it wasn't the Spanish who killed over three million indigenous people in Hispaniola, it was the war and slavery. And it wasn't the American military that burned Vietnamese villagers alive, it was the Napalm. And it wasn't the Hutus who systematically murdered Tutsis, it was the AK-47's. And it wasn't Stalin and his thugs who murdered over twenty million Russians, it was the famine. And it wasn't Mao Zedong and his followers who killed over thirty million people, it was the Great Leap Forward. And it wasn't the Khmer Rouge who destroyed twenty percent of Cambodia's population, it was the famine and malaria.

No, the Nazis killed them etc.

 

[the_stranger]

Try harder.

I'll keep practicing.

 

[Vito]

They say not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims. I bet if I turn on the local news right now, there will be a story either about a murder, rape, beating, gang related activity, pedophilia, and so on and not once will the word terrorist be used. Are those crimes not some form of terrorism? Why aren't any of the inmates in our prisons considered terrorists? Is it because most of them are probably that of the Christian faith so they don't want to tarnish this illusion they've created by making the words "Islam" and "terrorist" synonymous? The word terrorist isn't tied to any one religion yet, it only seems to be used towards one specific religion. Too bad people have fallen for this tactic.

 

[islamica]

As salaamu wa alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.


According to this, the Americans think if a Christian commits an act of terrorism, he isn't really a Christian but if a Muslim does the same, he is a Muslim!

So much for education and broad mindedness.

I just wanted to chronicle this here.

The American Double Standard On Religious Violence.
Source: ​http://theijtema.com/2013/05/09/american-double-standards/

Wa alay kum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakath.​

:wa:

See....


[h=1]Mentally-ill killer stabbed strangers in street attacks[/h]
http://metro.co.uk/2013/01/08/mentally-ill-killer-stabbed-strangers-in-street-attacks-3343937/

 

[glo]

Forgive my ignorance, islamica, but can you remind me who that guy in the picture is, what he did and why?
Thanks

 

[islamica]

Forgive my ignorance, islamica, but can you remind me who that guy in the picture is, what he did and why?
Thanks

James Eagan Holmes is the suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred on July 20, 2012 at a Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, which killed 12 people and injured 58 others. He had no known criminal record prior to the shooting. Wikipedia

​

If you are a Muslim, or have Muslim friends, chances are that you’ve seen the gem above doing the rounds on social media websites like Facebook, where the caption states that had Holmes been a Muslim, he would have automatically been labelled a terrorist by the American media.


Heck, you only have to visit video coverage of Holmes’ violent shooting spree on YouTube, or read the news reports on websites like CNN, to find random comments from outraged Muslims asking why he wasn’t labelled a ‘terrorist’.

 

[glo]

Thank you. I remember now.
Did he have political motivations?

With the reading I have done about the definition of terrorism, that seems to be a defining factor.

For example, Anders Behring Breivik was sentenced for terrorism, because he committed his attack as a statement against certain Norwegian policies, which he felt were too multi-cultural and open towards other cultures and religions.

Back in the 70s the IRA attacks were against the British authority in Northern Ireland and certain groups of people wanting independence from Britain.

Recorded statements of one of the attackers in Woolwich indicate that his actions were aimed against British foreign policies and their involvement in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those political drivers are - to my understanding - what makes something be described as a terrorist act.
Not how brutal the attack was or how much suffering was inflicted and also not what colour skin or religious views the attacker had, but what his motivations were.

(Incidentally, the grievances of these people may (or may not) have been quite justified. Their ways of expressing their anger wasn't!)