• Islamophobic hate crimes jump by 10 times usual rate following Woolwich attack
    121 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40777029]it is probably difficult for many to distinguish visually between Indians and Middle-Easterners.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ. Middle easterns and indians have completely different facial features. Sure both are brown-ish but middle easterns are generally more light-skinned than indians. Just look up "Saudi people" for example and "Indian people" and compare them yourself.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40777653]What do you expect? When a population shows severe issues with integration into a country they immigrated into, they will be rejected by the majority of the population. And no, the British don't have to conform to their ideals.[/QUOTE] I've known plenty of muslims. They're more fucking integrated than chavs.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;40777734]I've known plenty of muslims. They're more fucking integrated than chavs.[/QUOTE] Well apparently the people don't think so, so there must be a small but vocal (or noticeable) minority that has failed. That or they just hate Middle Eastern people, I wonder why?
[QUOTE=Cowabanga;40777707]I beg to differ. Middle easterns and indians have completely different facial features. Sure both are brown-ish but middle easterns are generally more light-skinned than indians. Just look up "Saudi people" for example and "Indian people" and compare them yourself.[/QUOTE] These are the same people who think that violence against innocent people is a valid response to an attack on an innocent person. Do we really think that "oh hang on these brown people look a bit different to these other brown people" is at the forefront of their little minds?
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;40777758]These are the same people who think that violence against innocent people is a valid response to an attack on an innocent person. Do we really think that "oh hang on these brown people look a bit different to these other brown people" is at the forefront of their little minds?[/QUOTE] I'm aware of that, hence why I only quoted the part where the dude said those two look the same. I just wanted to clarify.
[QUOTE=James*;40777318]Okay but then why isn't the attacks on Muslims also terrorism[/QUOTE] Because they aren't trying to coerce one or more persons to agree to a set objective. They are just mindlessly seeking revenge.
I wonder if it's because humans have a tendency to react first and think later. Is it possible that we bring this upon ourselves by refusing to change in how we react to certain things?
[QUOTE=James*;40777571]Because only Muslims commit terrorism right[/QUOTE] No one said that, the fact of the matter is that there is a difference between a hate crime and terrorism. Attacking people out of hatred and bigotry is not terrorism, it's a hate crime. It's not terrorism unless the attack is politically motivated with intent to incite fear on a national level.
The whole diverse society thing sure is a blessing.
[QUOTE=AK'z;40777000]This is more than islamophobia then, more like racism.[/QUOTE] When chavs hear "muslim" they think it means "brown people"
[QUOTE=Scrimp;40777860]The whole diverse society thing sure is a blessing.[/QUOTE] Because this is the fault of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and the Jewish, right? This is ENTIRELY the fault of religious and racial diversity, not problematic members of X religion! [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] Here's a cut-out-and-keep guide for immigrant disputes: A member of [REPLACE] did [REPLACE] so all of [REPLACE] are pure [PROFANITY] [RACIAL SLUR] [PROFANITY] and we should [EXECUTION METHOD] them all or [DEPORTATION REFERENCE]
Hate crime is not a solution. It will only worsen the problem.
[QUOTE=David29;40777789]Because they aren't trying to coerce one or more persons to agree to a set objective. They are just mindlessly seeking revenge.[/QUOTE] It's still the use of terror as tactic to bring about some sort of change, no matter how ill-thought-out and shortsighted their tactics are. Literally the only reason that these attacks on Muslims aren't called "terrorism" is because the perpetrators are white.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40777755]That or they just hate Middle Eastern people, I wonder why?[/QUOTE] Because they're disgustingly racist near-radical nationalists.
[QUOTE]An improvised petrol bomb was thrown at a mosque in Milton Keynes during Friday prayers[/QUOTE] Because the Muslims are the only ones who commit acts of terror.
[QUOTE=James*;40776813]Why are these attacks classed only as hate crimes whereas the Woolwich murder is supposedly terrorism[/QUOTE] because the Woolwich murder wasn't terrorism
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40778400]It's still the use of terror as tactic to bring about some sort of change, no matter how ill-thought-out and shortsighted their tactics are.[/QUOTE] It's still not quite the same thing. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40778400]Literally the only reason that these attacks on Muslims aren't called "terrorism" is because the perpetrators are white.[/QUOTE] I'm sure if they travelled to [example country] or whatever and killed someone or set of a bomb or whatever because of something [example country or people] supposedly did to the UK government or its people, they would be called terrorists too.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40778521]It's still not quite the same thing. I'm sure if they travelled to [example country] or whatever and killed someone or set of a bomb or whatever because of something [example country or people] supposedly did to the UK government or its people, they would be called terrorists too.[/QUOTE] So the mark of whether or not someone is a terrorist is whether or not they're from the country they perpetrated an attack in? Were the Ku Klux Klan and the Unabomber not terrorists, then?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40778574]So the mark of whether or not someone is a terrorist is whether or not they're from the country they perpetrated an attack in?[/QUOTE] Simplified, but yes that's kinda how I always considered terrorism. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40778574]Were the Ku Klux Klan and the Unabomber not terrorists, then?[/QUOTE] I don't know, I guess not?
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40778640]Simplified, but yes that's kinda how I always considered terrorism.[/QUOTE] That's the way a lot of people consider terrorism and it's really racist. [QUOTE=Hellsten;40778640]I don't know, I guess not?[/QUOTE] So these people who are widely accepted to be terrorists suddenly aren't terrorists because of this crazy definition you made up? What about the people who just set off a string of car bombs in Iraq? The people responsible were almost certainly Iraqis (to my knowledge). Are they not terrorists?
But isn't it most often considered terrorism when one set off a bomb or kill alot of people? In which case the Woolwich attack isn't terrorism. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] When I read about the Woolwich I actually never thought it would be considered terrorism.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40778694]But isn't it most often considered terrorism when one set off a bomb or kill alot of people? In which case the Woolwich attack isn't terrorism.[/QUOTE] Ok now you're literally just changing your definition every time you make a post.
[QUOTE=Scrimp;40777860]The whole diverse society thing sure is a blessing.[/QUOTE] Hey, you wanna hear a quote from the prophet Mohammed? "The ink of a scholar is worth more than the blood of a martyr." They don't even follow his teachings so it's not their religion to blame, just whatever twisted version they were told. Oh shit here's an even better one: “You will not enter paradise until you have faith. And you will not complete your faith until you love one another.” Loving involves axes now I guess.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40778725]Ok now you're literally just changing your definition every time you make a post.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'm actually not sure what my definition of terrorism is, but as I said I always thought it had to do with an attack based on something that happened in a completely different location, and bombs and killing a lot of people. If they actually blew something up (like a mosque, or some store owned by some foreigner - or a car during some muslim demonstration or whatever) it would and should be considered terrorism I think. Because terrorism is not equal to vandalizing and ordinary murder. These hatecrimes have more in common with a riot than terrorism, in my opinion. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] And as been mentioned before. I think they are just seeking some kind of revenge. I mean, if the hatecrime rate jump up 10 times following Woolwich, isn't that proof enough of that?
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40778640]Simplified, but yes that's kinda how I always considered terrorism.[/QUOTE] Then you are part of the problem
Ok [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] uh what problem [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] are we still talking about the definition of terrorism
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40778957]Ok [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] uh what problem [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] are we still talking about the definition of terrorism[/QUOTE] There is a double standard at work when incidents such as the Woolwich murder are considered terrorism and similar attacks carried out on Muslims are not, it diminishes the severity of the latter and reinforces the idea that terrorism is only carried out by 'others'
Well as I said I never considered the Woolwich attack as terrorism.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40779048]Well as I said I never considered the Woolwich attack as terrorism.[/QUOTE] Okay but you also suggested it's only terrorism when it's committed by someone from outside the country [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] Which is the sort of faulty logic that the double standard is based on
[QUOTE=James*;40779066]Okay but you also suggested it's only terrorism when it's committed by someone from outside the country[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hellsten;40778640]Simplified, but yes[/QUOTE] What I meant was, you for example perform an attack based on something going on in your homecountry, like some retaliation. But in my definition of terrorism it would also involve killing a large number of people or bombing shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.