when it was proved that a christain did the dirty deed, none of these same media had the guts to apologise. They are very quick to label Muslims and Islam but very shy to point fingers at their own.
Could it be that most of the major acts of terrorism that are done by people who practice Islam do it in the name of Islam, 09/11 - 05/07 - or 11/26 (Ok as Pakistani some people can deny that?) and when they do these acts they claim/or their planners claim that it was a revenge against what is being done against muslim countries / Islam by US and UK.
Whereas when Holmes and Timothy did what they did, did they claim to be doing that as a revenge for wrong doings to people that follow Christianity? So that is why they do not get labeled as Christian terrorists. This shouldn’t be too difficult to understand, so why do muslims on this forum (some very sane ones) can not stop discussing this over and over again.
Could it be that most of the major acts of terrorism that are done by people who practice Islam do it in the name of Islam, 09/11 - 05/07 - or 11/26 (Ok as Pakistani some people can deny that?) and when they do these acts they claim/or their planners claim that it was a revenge against what is being done against muslim countries / Islam by US and UK.
Whereas when Holmes and Timothy did what they did, did they claim to be doing that as a revenge for wrong doings to people that follow Christianity? So that is why they do not get labeled as Christian terrorists. This shouldn’t be too difficult to understand, so why do muslims on this forum (some very sane ones) can not stop discussing this over and over again.
I think you need to read my post slowly before becoming all apologetic for the west. What I said was that once it was proved that the deed was done by a christain and not a muslim there was no apology for the outlandish headline "In the name of Islam". Got it.
some advise to all that start talking about drones and muslims et al :
1) don't fool yourself by using muslim card to attack drones. drones were problems caused by Pakistani authorities non-cooperation & subterfuge
2) when such tragedy as Colorado occurs have the humanity to feel for the victims instead of trying to assuage your broken egos.
3) THINK. When so called educated people like you make such stupid equivocation between islamist ideology driven terrorism to mental breakdowns, you are unwittingly supporting terrorists. don't do that!
Could it be that most of the major acts of terrorism that are done by people who practice Islam do it in the name of Islam, 09/11 - 05/07 - or 11/26 (Ok as Pakistani some people can deny that?) and when they do these acts they claim/or their planners claim that it was a revenge against what is being done against muslim countries / Islam by US and UK.
Whereas when Holmes and Timothy did what they did, did they claim to be doing that as a revenge for wrong doings to people that follow Christianity? So that is why they do not get labeled as Christian terrorists. This shouldn’t be too difficult to understand, so why do muslims on this forum (some very sane ones) can not stop discussing this over and over again.
Since when does religion link with terrorism? I find it astounding that shooting 50 odd people and killing 12 is not considering terrorism.
I think you need to read my post slowly before becoming all apologetic for the west. What I said was that once it was proved that the deed was done by a christain and not a muslim there was no apology for the outlandish headline "In the name of Islam". Got it.
Buzurgooo...Woo Too Theek Hey, but you could have made your point without thinking/implying that I am apologetic for the west. :)
I am sorry, you need to spell out your qs. for me, I did not quite understand it.
Its rather simple. This is a pure and simple case of terrorism as according to international law. Yet it is not be considered one. Why is that? The Norway psycho killed close to 100 people yet he is not considered a terrorist. Rather an insane and disturbed mass murderer.
Its rather simple. This is a pure and simple case of terrorism as according to international law. Yet it is not be considered one. Why is that? The Norway psycho killed close to 100 people yet he is not considered a terrorist. Rather an insane and disturbed mass murderer.
Why the double standards?
That is something that I have wondered as well and thinking over it for a few hours It makes senese to me why he has not 'yet' being called a terrorist as so far there hasnt been any sign or indication that James did shooting because of some of his political or religious believes.
In most (vast majority) of terrorist incidents (suicide bombing/non suicide bombing or high jacking airplanes or kidnapping/killing people/group of people, assassination of political religious figures)the people who plan or commit those acts, they mostly have either religious or political motives behind their actions. So to me from the information available thus far, it makes sense that Holmes didnt commit terrorist act, he might (probably is) a psychopath for sure, but based on what I understand about terrorism, I wouldn't call him a terrorist.
That is something that I have wondered as well and thinking over it for a few hours It makes senese to me why he has not 'yet' being called a terrorist as so far there hasnt been any sign or indication that James did shooting because of some of his political or religious believes.
In most (vast majority) of terrorist incidents (suicide bombing/non suicide bombing or high jacking airplanes or kidnapping/killing people/group of people, assassination of political religious figures)the people who plan or commit those acts, they mostly have either religious or political motives behind their actions. So to me from the information available thus far, it makes sense that Holmes didnt commit terrorist act, he might (probably is) a psychopath for sure, but based on what I understand about terrorism, I wouldn't call him a terrorist.
Since when does terrorism have to be based solely on political or religious belief? So if it includes neither one of those its not terrorism? It doesn't cause terror to shoot at women and children in a cinema?
Stormraiser, why don't you take it up a notch and say we're not only gloating that this incident took place but also praying that more similar incidents take place to help with our agenda against the masoom western media?
I did not say this..It is very surprising that most of the posters here are talking about if he is a terrorist or not rather than sympathizing with the victims. It is just painful to see these kind of comments.
Deeba, deja vu indeed. Back when I pointed out the retarded courses being taught at the Pentagon against Islam and the muslim world, there were taunts thrown at me about how the talibans are my heroes! And now that we're simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the media, based on facts like those mentioned by CM and Ehsan uncle, not our own made up theories, us se bhi buhat takleef ho rahi hai sub ko. It's like you're either with them or one of the terrorists.
Talk about disappointments.
Hypocrisy exists everywhere and it is just painful to see people who stay in the west and claim to be proponents of free speech have no qualms in supporting the terrorists who do the worst crimes.
Since when does terrorism have to be based solely on political or religious belief? So if it includes neither one of those its not terrorism? It doesn't cause terror to shoot at women and children in a cinema?
Would it make you happy if he is branded a terrorist. What difference does it make.
Sad to see the energy in b*****ng him a terrorist but not a single word in condemning his actions.
There is no legally binding definition of terrorism that is accepted around the world. Terrorism usually involves not only the intention of instilling fear on civilians, but also a political motivation. So is this guy a terrorist? I think he is, but going strictly by the loose, unofficial definition, you could also make the case that he is not. A psychopath yes, but perhaps not a terrorist.
That said, the media clearly takes great license when attributing terrorism to a Muslim, or brown skinned suspect. Bill O took great offense at Brevik being called a Christian. Had the shooter been Muslim or brown, the headlines most likely would be much different. There is obvious bias in the mainstream media against Muslims.
Hypocrisy exists everywhere and it is just painful to see people who stay in the west and claim to be proponents of free speech have no qualms in **supporting the terrorists **who do the worst crimes.
On one hand, you're agreeing that the hypocrisy exists, on the other hand you and that other bhai/behan are accusing us of supporting terrorists. Pretty darn offensive.
Sad to see the energy in b*****ng him a terrorist but not a single word in condemning his actions.
But I did condemn his actions and expressed my deepest condolences for the victims and their families... so what's the problem, again?
A terrorist is a person who uses 'terror' in order to achieve certain political or religious objectives. A terrorist may target:
Civil infrastructures like roads, hospitals, schools, etc. Usually there are no casualties in such acts,
Armed personnel in order to redress real or imagined injustices. Usually civilian casualties are minimal, or
Soft targets, like crowded markets, buses, cinema halls, etc. which entail high civilian casualties.
The principal objective of these acts is not to take pleasure in the destructive acts themselves, but to spread awareness about the political objectives of the terrorist group from the notoriety and publicity that comes from the act. Thus, theoritically at least, the seemingly mindless acts of violence are tools to achieve specific rational and political objectives.
Anybody who tries to confuse the acts of terrorism with those of demented murderers is either hopelessly naive or deliberately disingenuous.
The day after the Batman shooting incident, I bought the local paper. There were many stories of madmen killing people. However, not one mentioned the religion of the accused.
On the other hand, there were two stories about muslim guys accused of terrorism and the word muslim was in the headline for both. One was the guy accused of a plot to bomb the capital of the US using drone planes and the other was some british guy.
Good! so they are not going to attack any muslim country because of this shooting because the shooter was one of them... are they going to bomb his home town for this crime?