Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'?

[p(-)0ENiX]

Thanks for the clarity about your view. Lets see few more examples.
1: A christian teacher's hand was chopped off by a muslim due to his allegedly blasphemous remark againt mohammed. Is it an act of terrorism? Will killing him be an act of terrorism?

Killing the Christian teacher could quite possibly be classified as terrorism. It could also be classified as a hate crime. It depends upon the situation, & the purpose killing this individual serves for the criminal involved. I haven't heard of this event, but the Muslim's response in this scenario is against the teachings of Islam.

2 : Everyday you can see on news few people dead in mexico. Drug lords/mafias kill each other as well as govt forces. Are these acts of terrorism?

Are mafias promoting a hateful ideology? I don't think so, or at least; I don't know of any mafia that does so. Usually gang wars aren't intended to harm or frighten innocent civilians, instead they are fought for power & control. However, one may consider such acts terrorism too, because their acts are illegal after all & there are likely to be civilian casualties involved.

I just want to add, don't consider every crime as "terrorism". In that case even a robbery could be classified as terrorism. The fact is that terrorists are those people that spread their ideology through violent acts, these acts incite fear among the populace. Their acts usually affect a large group of people rather than one or two individuals. However, there are always exceptions to the rules.

One more thing, war may not be classified as terrorism either, even if it's fought to promote an ideology. Simply because war causes terror in itself, & wars aren't fought for promoting an ideology alone, but for a combination of factors that may or may not include ideology. Keep in mind, this does not imply that inhumane acts of terror can't be carried out at wartime.

 

[xyxmt]

Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes of others are treated as acts carried out in some type of frustration, asks Syed Hassan Kazim

Norway is in sorrow and mourning since nearly a year because a 'maniac', 'mad man', 'rogue', 'mentally derailed' but not a 'terrorist' Anders Behring Breivik slaughtered 77 victims in Oslo, amid widespread global condemnation. The horrible massacre brought home a great reality for the European countries, that not everyone who commits massacres and killings is a Muslim.

It's not at all a surprise that immediately after that gruesome act the media the world over started to put the blame for the massacre on Muslims and Muslim organisations without giving a second thought to the fact that the one who carried out that act could be a Christian too. That particular act by Brevik started a debate about the nature of tolerance and freedom in Norway. Many media outlets across the globe, who are biased against everything Muslim, started to flash the news that, 'Muslim terrorists have slaughtered innocent Norwegian civilians' or 'Islamic terrorism reaches Norway'.

A couple of days back the same thing happened in America's Denver, Colorado, when a 'mad man', a 'mentally derailed' person but not a 'terrorist', James Holmes, attacked a cinema in Aurora town, and killed 12 innocent people while injuring 57 others during the the screening of the movie Dark Knight [ Images ] Rises. Holmes, who killed innocents, was for a while regarded as a terror suspect by a few media channels that never miss a chance to blame Muslims after all terror attacks. They changed their tone only after it was known that he was not a Muslim.

Our hearts must go out for the victims who are killed in such brutal attacks no matter if they are Americans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans or Palestinians. But the way each and every terror attack no matter by whom, is branded as an act of Islamic terror is something which we must condemn. No one has the right to demonise a whole community just because of the act of a few maniacs who happen to be Muslims.

Despite knowing the fact that most Muslims around the world are peace-loving, government agencies and the media around the world left no stone unturned to demonise the whole community as some sort of a terrorist community or as one sympathetic towards the ones who carry out terror acts.

The question is: would the response of the world media have been the same if the perpetrators of the massacres in Oslo and Colarado had been Muslims? The answer is 'no'. Many theories would have been propped up with the help of the government agencies and biased media to prove that the killers were having some affiliation to groups like the Al Qaeda [ Images ], Hizb-ut Tahrir and the many forms of Lashkar.

We must find out why such biases exist. Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes by others are treated as acts carried out in frustration and desperation? Why is an American soldier who goes berserk and kills innocent Afghan women, children and old men called a rogue soldier while the same act done by an Afghan Muslim would have been easily regarded as an act of 'Islamic terrorism'.

In a condolence message after the Colarado massacre, US President Barack Obama [ Images ] said , 'The people we lost in Aurora loved and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbours. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled'. Does it mean that the people whose lives were (and continue to be) horrifically cut short by US drones and NATO bombs based on the decisions of Obama were, of course, none of the above? They, of course, did not deserve to have hopes for the future.

Does the Nobel laureate American president think that the victims of the American bombing expeditions deserve drones and cluster bombs? It's high time America understands the fact that terrorism cannot be fought selectively. It's not only the Muslims who are terrorists but if an American soldier runs amok in the bad lands of Iraq and Afghanistan, he must also be treated at par with an Al Qaeda or Taliban [ Images ] terror suspect.

America must know and learn how to mourn 'others' who are killed by its drones on a daily basis. This indifference towards the 'others' from the Third World is one of the main reasons behind such anger towards America and its policies. May the departed souls in Colarado, Oslo, Afghanistan and Iraq rest in peace and may America learn and start to respect the 'others'.

But it's not only America but Indians and our government which is busy witch-hunting Muslim youth on false grounds, who must also learn the above lesson.

Syed Hassan Kazim is from the Nelson Mandela [ Images ] Centre for Peace and Conflict, Jamia Millia Islamia
Syed Hassan Kazim

Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'? - Rediff.com India News

Its so naive to discuss this, we all know why US needed a enemy and this is how you create enemies. remember cold war days commies?? and how this label was used, you commies!! was the most common Gali in the land of hillbillies and red neck and uneducated (majority) of US. Terrorist is a new Commy now!!
and we have to deal with it till either US grows so weak and loose its control or we take her down...lol

 

[livingdead]

Killing the Christian teacher could quite possibly be classified as terrorism. It could also be classified as a hate crime. It depends upon the situation, & the purpose killing this individual serves for the criminal involved. I haven't heard of this event, but the Muslim's response in this scenario is against the teachings of Islam.



Are mafias promoting a hateful ideology? I don't think so, or at least; I don't know of any mafia that does so. Usually gang wars aren't intended to harm or frighten innocent civilians, instead they are fought for power & control. However, one may consider such acts terrorism too, because their acts are illegal after all & there are likely to be civilian casualties involved.

I just want to add, don't consider every crime as "terrorism". In that case even a robbery could be classified as terrorism. The fact is that terrorists are those people that spread their ideology through violent acts, these acts incite fear among the populace. Their acts usually affect a large group of people rather than one or two individuals. However, there are always exceptions to the rules.

I am hoping will not change your view if killing was permitted in islam. Because you did not use religious teaching to classify terrorism in first place.

There is a small problem in your definition, it is difficult to know whether hatred was involved. I am really not sure whether foot soldiers of al qaida are a hateful bunch, some of them are doing because they think it is the right thing to do.

Here is a more widely acceptable definition: Its systematic use of terror as a mean of coercion. Usually killing or violence is not the end goal itself. Another key thing is, use of violence against those who are not directly involved in conflict.

In India, a specific word 'militancy' is used to differentiate between people who use violence against their adversary (army/police/govt agency) and not on civilians.

As per this definition:
1. chopping off hand of the christian teacher is not terrorism, even killing is not(even if intense hatred involved)
2. Mafia killing each other and govt forces is not terrorism
3. Brevik is a terrorst.(if you hear his political view and reason for killing)

 

[WolfSlayer]

I think you should have explained Muslim genocide in Burma and in India before you have brought up the issue of a hand full of non-muslims.
or is this your weak attempt to prove your right to kill muslims on such large scale.
And the ex

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I am hoping will not change your view if killing was permitted in islam. Because you did not use religious teaching to classify terrorism in first place.

Elucidate your comment further. What do you mean by "if killing was permitted in islam"? My views are subject to change, after all; I am a human, & I can make mistakes. I modified my previous post, so do remember to read it again.

There is a small problem in your definition, it is difficult to know whether hatred was involved. I am really not sure whether foot soldiers of al qaida are a hateful bunch, some of them are doing because they think it is the right thing to do.

The acts carried out by Al-Qaeda, such as blowing up buses or schools classify them as terrorists.

Here is a more widely acceptable definition: Its systematic use of terror as a mean of coercion. Usually killing or violence is not the end goal itself. Another key thing is, use of violence against those who are not directly involved in conflict.

My own definition is very similar to that if not exactly the same thing.

In India, a specific word 'militancy' is used to differentiate between people who use violence against their adversary (army/police/govt agency) and not on civilians.

As per this definition:
1. chopping off hand of the christian teacher is not terrorism, even killing is not(even if intense hatred involved)

Exactly, it all depends upon the circumstances in which the crime was carried out. If the crime was intended to scare the over all Christian community, there is a strong possibility of it being classified as terrorism.

2. Mafia killing each other and govt forces is not terrorism
3. Brevik is a terrorst.(if you hear his political view and reason for killing)

Read my views on the mafia that I posted earlier. I had already stated it earlier that Anders Behring Breivik is indeed a terrorist.

In conclusion, it's safe to say that a thorough investigation is required before an individual may be classified as a terrorist or before an act may be classified as terrorism.

 

[livingdead]

Shutup Packy. Stop using my religion to reform your's.

Indigestion? Try hajmola or eno. lol

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

actually in biased world such things r expected ,
Jis ki lathi us ki bhains ................
the one who is powerful is right , powerless is always wrong...
Muslims deserve this because they are divided , they lack faith , and have no feelings for sufferings of fellow Muslims ....

 

[livingdead]

Elucidate your comment further. What do you mean by "if killing was permitted in islam"? My views are subject to change, after all; I am a human, & I can make mistakes. I modified my previous post, so do remember to read it again.

No, I was only point out that even if it was permitted in islam it wont be act of terrorism as the action is against specific person,(a heinous criminal act) and not aimed at coercing other christians into submission. But then, you did add that point about motive, so we are talking about same thing.

The reason for me arguing about it, is because many people seems to be of the view that muslim's act of violence is considered terrorism where as non-muslims commit similar acts of violence but do not get the terrorist tag.
While media bias is certainly true, the examples people come up with are usually wrong (israel army, godhra riots, random shooting in US school, drone attacks etc)

I hasten to add, that we are on the same page (by and large) on this.

Nope. I've been reciting slokhas since the time I was born, cupcake.

I know by sentiment who's a Hindu and who's not.

And You are not.....

What if I am hindu? What if I am not hindu? How does it matter in a debate about terrorism?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

No, I was only point out that even if it was permitted in islam it wont be act of terrorism as the action is against specific person,(a heinous criminal act) and not aimed at coercing other christians into submission. But then, you did add that point about motive, so we are talking about same thing.

The intent of this despicable crime must be considered. Actions tend to be judged by intentions. If I shoot someone for the sake of it; it's cold blooded murder. If I shoot someone because that individual attacked me first; then it's self-defense.

The reason for me arguing about it, is because many people seems to be of the view that muslim's act of violence is considered terrorism where as non-muslims commit similar acts of violence but do not get the terrorist tag.

Religion has nothing to do with terrorism. If an act carried out by a Muslim is considered terrorism, then it's logical to say that a similar act carried out by a Christian would be terrorism too.

While media bias is certainly true, the examples people come up with are usually wrong (israel army, godhra riots, random shooting in US school, drone attacks etc)

I hasten to add, that we are on the same page (by and large) on this.

I already presented my views in my earlier posts. People may read them on this thread if they are interested.

Since you agree with me for the most part, I guess our discussion is over.

 

[Respect4Respect01]

I think its because of the quantity , more terrorist attacks are carried by people who call themselves muslims or saviors of islam than any other organization or group.


Its like a symbol being attached to muslims over a period of time which they have to themselves remove by their own good works .

no its because of the media, they make millions off showing Islam in a negative way.

 

[ajtr]

coz they are limited in incidents and not as widespread in every conflict of the world spread across boundaries.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Because only non-Muslims are allowed to kill people.

 

[Awesome]

Shouldn't a terrorist be someone who terrorizes?

The problem with the definition you're proposing makes for a very skewed terrorist - almost always just fitting a Muslim. All the causes around the world are mostly pro-Muslim - the losing side usually has causes.

You won't see an American movement within its population to go bomb Islamic countries... Its government is already doing so... They are doing it effectively. Instead of a cause, they have a foreign policy to do the same.

The only cause remaining to them is immigration (which was enough to resort to violence in Europe).

I deem it fit that anyone who tries to or commits violence on a massive scale is termed as terrorism.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Shouldn't a terrorist be someone who terrorizes?

The problem with the definition you're proposing makes for a very skewed terrorist - almost always just fitting a Muslim. All the causes around the world are mostly pro-Muslim - the losing side usually has causes.

You won't see an American movement within its population to go bomb Islamic countries... Its government is already doing so... They are doing it effectively. Instead of a cause, they have a foreign policy to do the same.

The only cause remaining to them is immigration (which was enough to resort to violence in Europe).

I deem it fit that anyone who tries to or commits violence on a massive scale is termed as terrorism.

To whom does this post refer to?

 

[Awesome]

To whom does this post refer to?

To the topic at hand, as all posts should be.