Originally Posted by Salik

The question isnt of what religion sugarcoats and what it actually is. The real question was whether it is fair to judge that any bombing taking place in this world is the hand of Muslims. The reality is that humanity suffers by these terrorist attacks, not individual races. No religion teaches to terrorize others, and anyone who does use terror means only do it for the sake of their own mental insanity.

The big problem is that 9/11 was so punctured on the news channels and is still discussed by people because the media highlighted the issue, claiming that it was Islamic terrorism. However, other statistics barely even get mentioned. Ask any person about 9/11 on the street and they will be able to tell you the whole event in so much detail. However, ask about the casualties of the Kashmir crisis and you might find 1 person, if you are lucky who even knows the name of Kashmir.

Talking purely about stats:

2997 people died in 9/11 (which includes muslims)

Now lets see how many muslims have died due to terrorist activities.

In 2008 alone in Pakistan, 200+ suicide bombings took place and the last bombing that happened was in fact 4 days ago, but you will barely find the stats in the news over here.

Kashmir: Since 1990, 13,000+ Kashmiri civilians have been murdered for the sake of land.

Palestine: 7,987 is the statistic US has given out of dead palestenians since the palestine/israel conflict. 59% of this stat were confirmed civilians.

Iraq and Afghanistan: a tolling 919,967 bare minimum is the stat US gives of dead civilians. Take a guess of how many of them were actual terrorists.

The point is that if muslims suffer from terrorism as well, then is it fair to subject the word "terrorism" with only muslims?

2 million+ people die in the atomic bombings of japan. To this date, it is not considered a terrorist act because it wasn't a muslim state or establishment who bombed japan.

What's going on in the Middle East and, quite frankly, the lack of attention being paid to it is ridiculous. I do not agree with the Japan analogy, however, because their is some form of "just-cause" there. However, terrorism is not only associated with Muslims. The IRA (Irish Republican Army) and the New People's Army (in the Philippines) are considered terrorist groups and their activities are branded as terrorist, yet they are non-Muslim. The only reason that the US brands Muslims as terrorist, just as Ireland brands the IRA as terrorists, is because they are the enemy. Just as the groups committing the crimes may see themselves as freedom fighters, the opponents of these groups see them as terrorists because, even though the groups are politically/emotionally/religiously fuelled, they go against what the state wants. With that being said, it's quite pathetic that this type of branding still occurs in a society that is as advanced as we are today, and it is sad that it has to be directed towards the Muslim community. I guess their always needs to be an enemy though (that was sarcasm).

This world makes me sad :(

Originally Posted by camais

What would you say the difference is between being racist and stereotypical. Want to know where you're coming from since for me they're just 2 shades of the same colour.




Instead of reading her name 'seh-rah', read it 'saa-raa' and let the "ahh that makes sense" factor settle in :p

Yeah I get it now. :$
I absolutely love the discussion going on, it's so full of information and stuff.

Originally Posted by camais

What would you say the difference is between being racist and stereotypical. Want to know where you're coming from since for me they're just 2 shades of the same colour.

You know, i see where you're coming from, but i slightly disagree with you. Racism is a conscious belief you are better than other people simply because of their skin colour. Stereotypes are the brains way of categorizing people for better data storage. It may not be exactly PC to fit people in different categories, but that's just the way the brain copes with data. Stereotypes aren't completely fiction either, compared to racism which is fiction (since we are all in fact equals), they wouldn't be stereotypes if there wasn't a little bit of truth in it.

Oh I have no problems with the way you define it. Everyone has their own place to draw the line. I just now have a better understanding on the context of what you said.

I know the west portrays iran as the "enemy" and part of the "axis of evil" lol
but take a look at this, for what "they" think about the norwegian bombings..http://www.presstv.ir/detail/191478.html

^That wasn't neccessary AT ALL.

Hence the facepalm.

Originally Posted by Salik

The question isnt of what religion sugarcoats and what it actually is. The real question was whether it is fair to judge that any bombing taking place in this world is the hand of Muslims. The reality is that humanity suffers by these terrorist attacks, not individual races. No religion teaches to terrorize others, and anyone who does use terror means only do it for the sake of their own mental insanity.

The big problem is that 9/11 was so punctured on the news channels and is still discussed by people because the media highlighted the issue, claiming that it was Islamic terrorism. However, other statistics barely even get mentioned. Ask any person about 9/11 on the street and they will be able to tell you the whole event in so much detail. However, ask about the casualties of the Kashmir crisis and you might find 1 person, if you are lucky who even knows the name of Kashmir.

Talking purely about stats:

2997 people died in 9/11 (which includes muslims)

Now lets see how many muslims have died due to terrorist activities.

In 2008 alone in Pakistan, 200+ suicide bombings took place and the last bombing that happened was in fact 4 days ago, but you will barely find the stats in the news over here.

Kashmir: Since 1990, 13,000+ Kashmiri civilians have been murdered for the sake of land.

Palestine: 7,987 is the statistic US has given out of dead palestenians since the palestine/israel conflict. 59% of this stat were confirmed civilians.

Iraq and Afghanistan: a tolling 919,967 bare minimum is the stat US gives of dead civilians. Take a guess of how many of them were actual terrorists.

The point is that if muslims suffer from terrorism as well, then is it fair to subject the word "terrorism" with only muslims?

2 million+ people die in the atomic bombings of japan. To this date, it is not considered a terrorist act because it wasn't a muslim state or establishment who bombed japan.

Let me just interject here: you seem to be complaining that western media puts 9/11 above other terror instances, due to the fact that Muslims did it (or that's what I'm getting).

The problem with your examples is EXCEPT for 9/11, they all occurred OUTSIDE the US in AREAS OF HEAVY CONFLICT or INSTABILITY. You'd EXPECT thousands of people to die in Kashmir, Iraq, etc, because there are serious wars going on there. On September 10th, New York was a peaceful city in a country that has not see war on its own land for hundreds of years. Its a little different to have 3000 people die out of the blue in a stable country and 8000 on a heavy disputed, militarized area.

Additionally, we all know how good Americans are at geography. They really aren't going to care much about what's going on outside their borders unless an American is involved. In most of those cases, they aren't. You can't blame them for that anymore than you can blame them for caring more about their Presidential races than the Canadian election.

Japan is an interesting example. There is revisionist history that discusses the atomic bomb as terrorism. In fact I've done it in tutorials before. The reason its not talked about is because it was sixty years ago. Additionally, it was BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES AT WAR. Despite the nature of the attack (which was unprecedented and quite horrible), it was not like some random US hawk sect came in and bombed japan out of the blue. Its a totally different situation (I can go into more detail if you want...).

Because I know I'm going to have to defend this: no, i am not defending the US media, or even western media. Yes those conflicts are horrible. What I'm doing is pointing out your examples are silly and that there really isn't nearly as much of a conspiracy as you see to believe.

Originally Posted by britb

The problem with your examples is EXCEPT for 9/11, they all occurred OUTSIDE the US in AREAS OF HEAVY CONFLICT or INSTABILITY. You'd EXPECT thousands of people to die in Kashmir, Iraq, etc, because there are serious wars going on there. On September 10th, New York was a peaceful city in a country that has not see war on its own land for hundreds of years. Its a little different to have 3000 people die out of the blue in a stable country and 8000 on a heavy disputed, militarized area.
.

B*tch please, have you been in our countries. Our cities are very peaceful (before the recent revolutions) There are no serious war going on in there, its the media that portrays it as huge war to make it seem like we live in a dumpster. You need to get a ticket and go see our countries before making such statement.

Originally Posted by L'Étoile

B*tch please, have you been in our countries. Our cities are very peaceful (before the recent revolutions) There are no serious war going on in there, its the media that portrays it as huge war to make it seem like we live in a dumpster. You need to get a ticket and go see our countries before making such statement.

No need to get defensive, she has a valid argument.

When was the last roadside bomb in toronto?

And to clarify, no i'm not implying it's raining twisted metal in the middle east all the time (all assuming prior to the current revolutions of course), but the simple fact that there is conflict. I don't have any statistics to support my claims, but if i were to guess i would think that there more bombings/militant activity per capita in the middle east, when compared to the west.

This thread is gone wayyyy off topic. Every conflict area was once peaceful, and war does not give en excuse for people dying. If tomorrow, iran declares war on canada and throws several hundred bombs in toronto, i would like to see it not appear on the news because war has been declared. Western media only shows and stresses what they like.

@the original question, which has already been answered, is it fair to assume that every bombing is done by a muslim? And is it fair to associate the word "terrorist" with muslims while words like "madman" or "extremist" are saved for other races?

The answer is no.

/end thread.

Originally Posted by Salik

@the original question, which has already been answered, is it fair to assume that every bombing is done by a muslim? And is it fair to associate the word "terrorist" with muslims while words like "madman" or "extremist" are saved for other races?

The answer is no.

/end thread.

Well said. I am sick and tired of media calling all attacks by muslims/arabs terrorists but everyone else fro other races are madmen or extremist its crazy and unfair.

I don't even understand why a thread had to be made about this, the OP is asking a rhetorical question. And the Japanese atomic bombs are not an act of terrorism, you have to understand a war was going on and that the event will always be chalked up as a casualty to war. Regardless, killing people is wrong.