|
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
By charlo999 2015-01-24 18:45:13
Bukhari brings it home
YouTube Video Placeholder
Didn't bother to watch all
Then why bother posting an opinion on it.
Basically, your whole opinion therefor, is massively pre-bias, invalid and a waste of space and time.
Much like yours, except I didn't waste time watching a fool in a video, just reading your garbage post.
I'm sorry, did my free speech against Muslims make u irate??? the funny that is some of these posts. Keep defending nonsense.
Uh? Did you see any anger in my post?
I actually take my time to read others views and try to see their logic behind it. Then come to a conclusion whether I agree or disagree.
If there is a viable point being argued I can take it on board, maybe swaying my stance. In this case I havnt seen a viable point.
What I don't do is not even take the time to read/watch what someone has posted, then vent my bias opinion angrily in my substiquant quoted post. Might as well not quote it and just vent in A solo post.
Seems like your jpg shows you up more than me.
So carry on hating bro, your only hurting yourself.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-24 19:19:59
French article 11. of there Constitution known as Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, states the following :
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
Also note they actually do have laws written to prevent hate speech in France for specific things. So technically they have no true Freedom of Speech like we have in America. Our 1st amendment was not written to protect popular speech, anyone who takes that out of meaning, needs to study the constitution more because why would popular speech need protecting? Wow, talking about getting it wrong badly.
French Constitution Article 11
Le Frenchy Speak said: Le Président de la République, sur proposition du Gouvernement pendant la durée des sessions ou sur proposition conjointe des deux assemblées, publiées au Journal officiel, peut soumettre au référendum tout projet de loi portant sur l'organisation des pouvoirs publics, sur des réformes relatives à la politique économique, sociale ou environnementale de la nation et aux services publics qui y concourent, ou tendant à autoriser la ratification d'un traité qui, sans être contraire à la Constitution, aurait des incidences sur le fonctionnement des institutions.
Lorsque le référendum est organisé sur proposition du Gouvernement, celui-ci fait, devant chaque assemblée, une déclaration qui est suivie d'un débat.
Un référendum portant sur un objet mentionné au premier alinéa peut être organisé à l’initiative d’un cinquième des membres du Parlement, soutenue par un dixième des électeurs inscrits sur les listes électorales. Cette initiative prend la forme d’une proposition de loi et ne peut avoir pour objet l’abrogation d’une disposition législative promulguée depuis moins d’un an.
Les conditions de sa présentation et celles dans lesquelles le Conseil constitutionnel contrôle le respect des dispositions de l’alinéa précédent sont déterminées par une loi organique.
Si la proposition de loi n’a pas été examinée par les deux assemblées dans un délai fixé par la loi organique, le Président de la République la soumet au référendum.
Lorsque la proposition de loi n’est pas adoptée par le peuple français, aucune nouvelle proposition de référendum portant sur le même sujet ne peut être présentée avant l’expiration d’un délai de deux ans suivant la date du scrutin.
Lorsque le référendum a conclu à l'adoption du projet ou de la proposition de loi, le Président de la République promulgue la loi dans les quinze jours qui suivent la proclamation des résultats de la consultation. »
— Article 11 de la Constitution (version en vigueur)
In Plain English said: "The President of the Republic, on a proposal from the Government when Parliament is in session or on a joint motion of the two assemblies, published in the Official Journal, submit to a referendum any bill on the organization of government, on related reforms economic policy, social or environmental nation and public services contributing thereto, or authorizing the ratification of a treaty which, although not contrary to the Constitution, would affect the functioning of institutions.
When the referendum is held on the proposal of the Government , it made before each meeting, a statement that is followed by a discussion.
A referendum on an object in the first paragraph may be organized at the initiative of one fifth of the members of Parliament, supported by one tenth of voters on the electoral roll. This initiative takes the form of a bill and can be applied to the repeal of a legislative provision promulgated for less than one year.
The conditions of his presentation and those in which the Constitutional Council monitors compliance of the previous paragraph are determined by an organic law.
If the bill has not been examined by the two Houses within a period set by the organic law, the President of the Republic shall submit it to a referendum.
When the bill is not passed by the French people, no new referendum proposal on the same subject can not be made before the expiry of a period of two years from the election date.
When the referendum decides to adopt the draft or proposed law , the President of the Republic shall promulgate it within fifteen days of the announcement of the results of the consultation. »
- Article 11 of the Constitution (current version)
Article 11 of the French Constitution is pretty much outlining Presidential powers regarding referendums of public law.....
Nowhere does Article 11 of the French Constitution mentions anything about freedom of speech......
Let me guess, a Youtube video told you wrong? Go figure.
By Nazrious 2015-01-24 19:37:08
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Liable
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-24 19:44:28
Wow, talking about getting it wrong badly. It's Article 11 of the Declarations of the Rights of Man. It's a document that inspired the US Declaration of Independence. It is recognized as having constitutional value under the current Constitution of the French republic and has been used to overturn laws.
So... a little of column A, a little of column B. Its actual place in French law is somewhat like the place of English Common Law in US jurisprudence: traditional but apparently open to some flexibility. Compare how habeus corpus is handled in US law: the idea itself seems to be implied though we have laws that govern how it is employed.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-24 19:51:25
Wow, talking about getting it wrong badly. It's Article 11 of the Declarations of the Rights of Man. It's a document that inspired the US Declaration of Independence. It is recognized as having constitutional value under the current Constitution of the French republic and has been used to overturn laws.
So... a little of column A, a little of column B. Its actual place in French law is somewhat like the place of English Common Law in US jurisprudence: traditional but apparently open to some flexibility. Compare how habeus corpus is handled in US law: the idea itself seems to be implied though we have laws that govern how it is employed. He said Article 11 of the French Constitution. He didn't say Article 11 of the Declarations of the Rights of Man, which is a preamble of the current Constitution (and not an article of law itself). He used the wrong source material (again).
When you source something, you have to make sure that you are getting it from the right area, and not as a general guess.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-24 20:27:23
He said the Declaration was the same thing as a Constitution. Which is wrong, and I won't deny that, but I was pointing out that the Declaration is treated as being constitutionally valid. So you're really arguing a semantic point more than a substantive one.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2015-01-24 20:41:33
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Liable
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
Libel.
By Nazrious 2015-01-24 21:51:00
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Liable
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
Libel.
Correct sir. Your spelling prowess has invalidated my entire post. Or not rly.
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-24 21:59:20
Oh hello, straw man.
By Nazrious 2015-01-24 22:26:18
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-24 22:35:10
Correcting your spelling was not in any way suggesting what you'd said was wrong. But presumably you think you were wrong to assume that.
By Nazrious 2015-01-24 22:41:02
Correcting your spelling was not in any way suggesting what you'd said was wrong. But presumably you think you were wrong to assume that.
Can never know with Jet.
Also you should not presume. I am not wrong.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-24 23:26:50
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Libel
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
This has been stated in multiple ways by multiple people since the Paris attack on this forum.
The ones offended by the cartoons state that these controls don't go far enough and there needs to be greater restrictions (that some don't want to call censorship) in who, where, and when these images can be viewed.
Some think they should be completely censored as "they add no value".
[+]
By Nazrious 2015-01-24 23:55:43
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Libel
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
This has been stated in multiple ways by multiple people since the Paris attack on this forum.
The ones offended by the cartoons state that these controls don't go far enough and there needs to be greater restrictions (that some don't want to call censorship) in who, where, and when these images can be viewed.
Some think they should be completely censored as "they add no value".
What keeps getting confused is the protections granted to Journalist in the US and Western countries like the UK, and Free Speech.
However in the same countries where journalist fear government reprisal/censorship free speech is not the issue. Human rights are the issue.
I could really care less about what people claim to be disrespectful in regards to their religion, on that same note most attacks on religion are for shock value and are made by people who misinformed/under informed. Just a whole hell of a lot of weak drama.
People are animals, who have evolved to the point where they are able to delude themselves into believing that they are not. Any excuse to kill or hate is good enough and religion is a good and convenient excuse.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-25 01:01:12
Correcting your spelling was not in any way suggesting what you'd said was wrong. But presumably you think you were wrong to assume that.
Can never know with Jet.
Also you should not presume. I am not wrong.
What is wrong is to think that your post was worth the time to be corrected aside from using the wrong word.
If I thought you would grasp why your post was otherwise pointless, I would have bothered to comment on it after correcting your other error.
But I'll make it simple, just for the lulz:
In the United States, any infringement other than the 3 (you listed 4, but since one was redundant...) it's pretty much anything goes. That being said, it only protects you from the big bad government.
Nobody is arguing those things though, so it's entirely moot, can we move on to what people are actually talking about now?
Cerberus.Detzu
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 869
By Cerberus.Detzu 2015-01-25 01:37:50
Funny how no one understands what exactly Free speech means.
Free speech originates from the fact that the crown controlled all printed materials (Publication), as in you could not even PRINT anything without express approval from the crown.
In the US you can publish anythings, but can and likely will be held to account.
Liable
Defamation
Incitement to commit crimes
Causing an unreasonable danger (yelling Fire in crowded movie theater)
Most, if not all, 1st world countries have free speech.
One cannot say that free speech didn't evolve with the coming of internet. It's not an absolute right but it's one of the most important rights.
By Nazrious 2015-01-25 01:39:40
Correcting your spelling was not in any way suggesting what you'd said was wrong. But presumably you think you were wrong to assume that.
Can never know with Jet.
Also you should not presume. I am not wrong.
What is wrong is to think that your post was worth the time to be corrected aside from using the wrong word.
If I thought you would grasp why your post was otherwise pointless, I would have bothered to comment on it after correcting your other error.
But I'll make it simple, just for the lulz:
In the United States, any infringement other than the 3 (you listed 4, but since one was redundant...) it's pretty much anything goes. That being said, it only protects you from the big bad government.
Nobody is arguing those things though, so it's entirely moot, can we move on to what people are actually talking about now?
4, one is spoken one is written. they are different, not just semantically, but actually not the same. Jet you are also wrong again Defamation/Libel are only possible against people, you can not Defame the government, people who work for it but not the government itself.
I will point out false assumptions and inaccurate "Facts" as well as law as much as I want, you don't like it tough, spend less time pointing out spelling mistakes or just continue to be a hypocrite.
*Shrug*
Also What exactly is being spoken about here? I read a lot of crying from the pro-Muslim front about being lumped in with terrorist.
Is every one simply suppose to hold each others *** and nod in consent simply because they say so?
All of my posts were sarcastic and mocking, are all terrorist Muslim, no, are all Muslims terrorist, of course not. However right now its so easy to make fun of, and the canned responses are so funny.
FYI everything on this forum was said before, none of it is original, if you think any of it is, then I got a bridge to sell you in Iran.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-25 01:52:22
Also What exactly is being spoken about here? I read a lot of crying from the pro-Muslim front about being lumped in with terrorist.
Is every one simply suppose to hold each others *** and nod in consent simply because they say so?
Those offended want the Islamic culture to be respected over satire or free speech in "the West".
They want more protections put in place that restrict or completely censor images of the prophet (and maybe all religious figures).
Edit:
Your second sentence though crude, would be accurate
By Nazrious 2015-01-25 02:15:16
Also What exactly is being spoken about here? I read a lot of crying from the pro-Muslim front about being lumped in with terrorist.
Is every one simply suppose to hold each others *** and nod in consent simply because they say so?
Those offended want the Islamic culture to be respected over satire or free speech in "the West".
They want more protections put in place that restrict or completely censor images of the prophet (and maybe all religious figures).
Edit:
Your second sentence though crude, would be accurate
Unzips well, lets get this over with.
Allah Akbar and all that Jaz.
Just rub your hands and warm em up first.
Yeah, right stop drooling you pervs.
For people who have such strict guidelines and rituals its amusing that so many can be such whining Inf(idel)ants.
Lakshmi.Ryanx
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 712
By Lakshmi.Ryanx 2015-01-25 04:25:05
I do not know much when it comes to the middle east stuff but when I hear of terrorist's the first thing that comes to mind is the goverment.
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2020
By Siren.Lordgrim 2015-01-25 06:31:05
I do not know much when it comes to the middle east stuff but when I hear of terrorist's the first thing that comes to mind is the goverment.
the original definition, said the same thing. well said.
Garuda.Chanti
Server: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11117
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-01-25 10:28:16
Loldgrim said: Quote: They don't really have free speech in France, there are things you cannot say there without risking jail time. And we aren't talking about the "FIRE" in a crowded theater theory.
French article 11. of there Constitution known as Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, states the following.... No mater what it states...
France Arrests a Comedian For His Facebook Comments, Showing the Sham of the West’s “Free Speech” Celebration
Quote: .... The comedian, Dieudonné, previously sought elective office in France on what he called an “anti-Zionist” platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country....
Quote: There are Jewish courts in this country and I am fairly sure that the LDS have a religious court system.
Loldgrim said: Are you talking about the United States? because congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be stripped by Congress. So if your a american citizen on u.s soil. You better believe you will be in a Federal court of U.S authority regardless of ethnicity, wealth or religion in cases of breaking laws. The federal courts are incapable of dealing with many religious maters. The vast majority of religions have mechanisms to do so. Some are formal enough to be properly called courts.
There are Jewish courts in Willamsburg, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Quote: Where would one find such a utopia?
Loldgrim said: No one place is perfect nor can be labeled a utopia. If your asking me i would say my own nation the U.S. I find it beautiful and like no other place in this world because in these 50 states we have a little bit of everything. I am not glorifying injustice or a flawed past but at every challenge that faces my nation we overcome it. The U.S may not be a perfect utopia but we can make it better and have the right to. Loldgrim said: The same can definitely be said about government. Any established civilized system should follow the same laws they write with no exceptions or special privileges for anything or anyone or any faith. This goes for the leader to the citizen. ....
Quote: It is neither valid nor honest.
Loldgrim said: Says who ? You? I gave my own personal opinion .... No. You stated "valid and honest" as facts, not opinion. And yes. I stated it was neither.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-25 12:04:44
Correcting your spelling was not in any way suggesting what you'd said was wrong. But presumably you think you were wrong to assume that.
Can never know with Jet.
Also you should not presume. I am not wrong.
What is wrong is to think that your post was worth the time to be corrected aside from using the wrong word.
If I thought you would grasp why your post was otherwise pointless, I would have bothered to comment on it after correcting your other error.
But I'll make it simple, just for the lulz:
In the United States, any infringement other than the 3 (you listed 4, but since one was redundant...) it's pretty much anything goes. That being said, it only protects you from the big bad government.
Nobody is arguing those things though, so it's entirely moot, can we move on to what people are actually talking about now?
4, one is spoken one is written. they are different, not just semantically, but actually not the same. Jet you are also wrong again Defamation/Libel are only possible against people, you can not Defame the government, people who work for it but not the government itself.
No, defamation has two subsects: slander and libel, the latter of which is written, and that you used the wrong word for, so 3.
As for the "me being wrong" bit, nope. I'm not sure if it's because you didn't read it right, or just because you don't understand but the 1st amendment is protection from the government, I don't know what side tangent you went off on.
Quote: I will point out false assumptions and inaccurate "Facts" as well as law as much as I want, you don't like it tough, spend less time pointing out spelling mistakes or just continue to be a hypocrite. Oh look somebody else who doesn't know what the word "hypocrite" means... aside from that you can tr y to point out what you said, but it would help if you knew what you were talking about, which you don't.
Quote: *Shrug*
Also What exactly is being spoken about here? I read a lot of crying from the pro-Muslim front about being lumped in with terrorist.
Is every one simply suppose to hold each others *** and nod in consent simply because they say so?
All of my posts were sarcastic and mocking, are all terrorists Muslim, no, are all Muslims terrorists, of course not. However right now its so easy to make fun of, and the canned responses are so funny.
FYI everything on this forum was said before, none of it is original, if you think any of it is, then I got a bridge to sell you in Iran.
I think something may be crossed in your brain.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-25 12:05:16
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-25 13:34:25
I do not know much when it comes to the middle east stuff but when I hear of terrorist's the first thing that comes to mind is the goverment.
the original definition, said the same thing. well said. There's more than one definition of "Terrorist"? Or is there more than one youtube video definding terrorist, and they don't agree with each other?
Because, you know, truth and justice and all that.
By Nazrious 2015-01-25 13:36:20
Loldgrim said:
Quote: There are Jewish courts in this country and I am fairly sure that the LDS have a religious court system.
Loldgrim said: Are you talking about the United States? because congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be stripped by Congress. So if your a american citizen on u.s soil. You better believe you will be in a Federal court of U.S authority regardless of ethnicity, wealth or religion in cases of breaking laws. The federal courts are incapable of dealing with many religious maters. The vast majority of religions have mechanisms to do so. Some are formal enough to be properly called courts.
There are Jewish courts in Willamsburg, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Wut??????????
Rofl
LMFAO
LOLWASF
Yeah Jewish courts have so much authority here in the US.
@Jet yeah you are correct my bad was using defamation in place of slander go go late night posting.
As for the hypocrisy, if you point out something wrong in another person posts, then try to bash people who point out something wrong in others posts you agree with, that is Hypocrisy, thus making one a hypocrite.
See you pointed out I was using defamation instead of slander, thus when I point out that people are using Free speech improperly and your first reaction is to jump on the jihad bandwagon you might want to slow down and think.
Your argument seems to be "The west is bad, any who disagree with me, Hey look he used the wrong word."
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-25 13:38:00
Jewish courts = temples. Like it really matters anyway.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-25 18:12:04
@Jet yeah you are correct my bad was using defamation in place of slander go go late night posting.
As for the hypocrisy, if you point out something wrong in another person posts, then try to bash people who point out something wrong in others posts you agree with, that is Hypocrisy, thus making one a hypocrite.
See you pointed out I was using defamation instead of slander, thus when I point out that people are using Free speech improperly and your first reaction is to jump on the jihad bandwagon you might want to slow down and think.
Your argument seems to be "The west is bad, any who disagree with me, Hey look he used the wrong word." What the *** are you smoking?
I've said/done none of these things...
By Nazrious 2015-01-25 21:25:55
@Jet yeah you are correct my bad was using defamation in place of slander go go late night posting.
As for the hypocrisy, if you point out something wrong in another person posts, then try to bash people who point out something wrong in others posts you agree with, that is Hypocrisy, thus making one a hypocrite.
See you pointed out I was using defamation instead of slander, thus when I point out that people are using Free speech improperly and your first reaction is to jump on the jihad bandwagon you might want to slow down and think.
Your argument seems to be "The west is bad, any who disagree with me, Hey look he used the wrong word." What the *** are you smoking?
I've said/done none of these things...
You did.
see I can just make statements and not back them up too, no quotes for you. life is tough get a helmet.
And you actually did.
Quote: What percentage of terror attacks in the United States and Europe are committed by Muslims? Guess. Nope. Guess again. And again...
“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many times have you heard that one? Sure, we heard Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade say it, but to me, that was simply part of the Fox News plan to make their viewers dumber, as we saw again this past weekend when its terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson was caught fabricating the story that Birmingham, England, is closed to non-Muslims. But more alarmingly, even some reasonable people have uttered this statement.
And that comment is often followed up by the question: Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?
Obviously, there are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. We Muslims can make the case that their actions are not based on any part of the faith but on their own political agenda. But they are Muslims, no denying that.
However, and this will probably shock many, so you might want to take a breath: Overwhelmingly, those who have committed terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe aren’t Muslims. Let’s give that a moment to sink in.
Now, it’s not your fault if you aren’t aware of that fact. You can blame the media. (Yes, Sarah Palin and I actually agree on one thing: The mainstream media sucks.)
So here are some statistics for those interested. Let’s start with Europe. Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years? Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.
As Europol, the European Union’s law-enforcement agency, noted in its report released last year, the vast majority of terror attacks in Europe were perpetrated by separatist groups. For example, in 2013, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs.
Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers.
We are talking about groups like France’s FLNC, which advocates an independent nation for the island of Corsica. In December 2013, FLNC terrorists carried out simultaneous rocket attacks against police stations in two French cities. And in Greece in late 2013, the left-wing Militant Popular Revolutionary Forces shot and killed two members of the right-wing political party Golden Dawn. While over in Italy, the anarchist group FAI engaged in numerous terror attacks including sending a bomb to a journalist. And the list goes on and on.
Have you heard of these incidents? Probably not. But if Muslims had committed them do you think you our media would’ve covered it? No need to answer, that’s a rhetorical question.
Even after one of the worst terror attacks ever in Europe in 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto, how much press did we see in the United States? Yes, it was covered, but not the way we see when a Muslim terrorist is involved. Plus we didn’t see terrorism experts fill the cable news sphere asking how we can stop future Christian terrorists. In fact, even the suggestion that Breivik was a “Christian terrorist” was met with outrage by many, including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.
Have you heard about the Buddhist terrorists? Well, extremist Buddhists have killed many Muslim civilians in Burma, and just a few months ago in Sri Lanka, some went on a violent rampage burning down Muslim homes and businesses and slaughtering four Muslims.
Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.
Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).
In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
But our media simply do not cover the non-Muslim terror attacks with same gusto. Why? It’s a business decision. Stories about scary “others” play better. It’s a story that can simply be framed as good versus evil with Americans being the good guy and the brown Muslim as the bad.
Honestly, when is the last time we heard the media refer to those who attack abortion clinics as “Christian terrorists,” even though these attacks occur at one of every five reproductive health-care facilities? That doesn’t sell as well. After all we are a so-called Christian nation, so that would require us to look at the enemy within our country, and that makes many uncomfortable. Or worse, it makes them change the channel.
That’s the same reason we don’t see many stories about how to reduce the 30 Americans killed each day by gun violence or the three women per day killed by domestic violence. But the media will have on expert after expert discussing how can we stop these scary brown Muslims from killing any more Americans despite the fact you actually have a better chance of being killed by a refrigerator falling on you.
Look, this article is not going to change the media’s business model. But what I hope it does is cause some to realize that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, they are actually a very small percent of those that are. Now, I’m not saying to ignore the dangers posed by Islamic radicals. I’m just saying look out for those refrigerators.
Source
|
|