The Student Room Group

Boston bombing: the real problem

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/16/boston-marathon-explosions-notes-reactions

Pretty much spot on

Scroll to see replies

whats wrong with thinking it was muslims? statistically they are the most likely to do this
Reply 2
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Original post by iamgreatness
whats wrong with thinking it was muslims? statistically they are the most likely to do this


Ah man, where's that video where it dispels this myth.

It's on youtube. and it's done by a professor who did a ground breaking study.

Also, there's a difference between saying "it could be Muslims" vs what the majority say with certainty "oh its dem muslims agen hur dur".
Reply 3
Avatar for Steevee
Steevee
15
Typical pathetic Guardian waffle.

Let's compare a double tap tactic used against combatants that can only be engaged in when they are clearly combatants to a bomb designed to take out civilians. Let's compare collateral damage to intentionally targetting civilians. Let's blame the US for everything wrong with Iraq today. And let's do all this explicitly.

Is the rush to blame Islamic extremists worrying? Yes. Is it understandable? Yes. But some of the implications in this article are absurd. His claim that in the US the term terrorism is only used when it involves Muslims is ridiculous.

The Guardian is just as bad as the Mail sometimes.
Reply 4
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Original post by Steevee
Typical pathetic Guardian waffle.

Let's compare a double tap tactic used against combatants that can only be engaged in when they are clearly combatants to a bomb designed to take out civilians. Let's compare collateral damage to intentionally targetting civilians. Let's blame the US for everything wrong with Iraq today. And let's do all this explicitly.

Is the rush to blame Islamic extremists worrying? Yes. Is it understandable? Yes. But some of the implications in this article are absurd. His claim that in the US the term terrorism is only used when it involves Muslims is ridiculous.

The Guardian is just as bad as the Mail sometimes.

Let's compare state sanctioned terrorism vs nutjobs. Let's compare systematic devastation vs a saddening, but comparatively minor isolated event. Let's blame USA for everything wrong with Iraq today.
Original post by tehforum


I have increasingly noticed this PC hysteria around the bombings. They're hijacking this story to try and prove racism against Muslims, or that everybody is blaming Muslims.

Just because somebody may also believe they were Muslims or A Muslim, doesn't mean they're hating on muslims. Some people susepct North Korea & Far-right groups as well. It's not the first time we've seen fabrications such as this before though. The Western world seems to take every opportunity it can to create this racism narrative. I am sure that if a veiled, Muslim woman was randomly assaulted in an unprovoked attack, People would jump to 'Racism' or 'Islamophobia'... Which has been much more common in our society.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 6
Avatar for Chindits
Chindits
The Guardian - a rush to exonerate Muslims.

The Guardian - rushes to blame Israel for everything and anything.
Reply 7
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Original post by slickrick666999
I have increasingly noticed this PC hysteria around the bombings. They're hijacking this story to try and prove racism against Muslims, or that everybody is blaming Muslims.

Just because somebody may also believe they were Muslims or A Muslim, doesn't mean they're hating on muslims. Some people susepct North Korea & Far-right groups as well. It's not the first time we've seen fabrications such as this before though. The Western world seems to take every opportunity it can to create this racism narrative.


See earlier post.

" there's a difference between saying "it could be Muslims" vs what the majority say with certainty "oh its dem muslims agen hur dur"."
Reply 8
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Also, are you really blaming the Guardian for these "pro-Muslim viewpoints"?

It's "comment is free", it doesn't represent the views of the Editorial.
Reply 9
Avatar for Thewildwun
Thewildwun
That article is disgusting! I hate that every time 'terrorism' is used everyone immediately assumes its Muslims. For all we know this could have been done by Christians or Jews! The media just wants us to being that this is the doing of Muslims. We should be ignoring that sh*t


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 10
Avatar for Kiss
Kiss
2
Ahhhh The Guardian. Prime example of doublespeak, ass kissing to anyone non-white, and hatred of British/Western ethos.

The exploitation of a human tragedy never goes amiss.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 11
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Original post by Thewildwun
That article is disgusting! I hate that every time 'terrorism' is used everyone immediately assumes its Muslims. For all we know this could have been done by Christians or Jews! The media just wants us to being that this is the doing of Muslims. We should be ignoring that sh*t


Posted from TSR Mobile


That means you agree with the article...
Original post by tehforum
See earlier post.

" there's a difference between saying "it could be Muslims" vs what the majority say with certainty "oh its dem muslims agen hur dur"."


Is the majority saying that with certainty or do you suspect it? As I said, these issues have been occuring for years. Why is everybody now speaking up when it's on Muslims? :confused:

The Media ran storys for 4/5 days on the Toulouser shooter being a Far-Right affiliate and Neo-Nazism/Facism on the rise. I read one story online tagged 'Minority communities on stand-by'.

Yet 4 or 5 days afer looking for this far-right, white frenchman, they actually discovered the shooter was a Muslim. Story seemed to go a bit cold after that....But I do not remember anybody getting particularly angry about non-muslims being blamed. I guess because maybe accusing white people isn't exactly Politically incorrect by definition..
Original post by iamgreatness
whats wrong with thinking it was muslims? statistically they are the most likely to do this


Well if we all started to scapegoat races, religions, or other groups based on little except your own opinions and prejudices then that's how scapegoating and scaremongering starts, which follows by mass witch hunts of people of said group.
Since we are (supposedly) the smartest species on the planet and (supposedly) a first world nation why don't we try not pointing the finger wildly which only leads to hatred and potentially violence. Think you can manage that?
Reply 14
Avatar for Kiss
Kiss
2
Original post by tehforum
Let's compare state sanctioned terrorism vs nutjobs. Let's compare systematic devastation vs a saddening, but comparatively minor isolated event. Let's blame USA for everything wrong with Iraq today.


You can't blame Americans for suspecting the most notorious group which has repeatedly demonstrated it is not a religion of peace. Now I'm not saying that a radical Muslim group is responsible as of yet, but you are in no position to blame people for thinking rationally in light of previous terrorist attacks. You can't tar all of Islam under one brush but at the same time you can't expect Americans not to be pissed off. And if it does turn out to be another terrorist attack from a radical muslim group once again then you've basically told everyone not to suspect the culprit.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by thunder_chunky
Well if we all started to scapegoat races, religions, or other groups based on little except your own opinions and prejudices then that's how scapegoating and scaremongering starts, which follows by mass witch hunts of people of said group.
Since we are (supposedly) the smartest species on the planet and (supposedly) a first world nation why don't we try not pointing the finger wildly which only leads to hatred and potentially violence. Think you can manage that?

Didn't you read what i put? statistically. Statistics dont have any prejudice. its based on empirical knowledge. dont bother replying if you're going to chat some left wing ****.
Original post by tehforum
Let's compare state sanctioned terrorism vs nutjobs. Let's compare systematic devastation vs a saddening, but comparatively minor isolated event. Let's blame USA for everything wrong with Iraq today.


Can you provide an example of this "state sanctioned terrorism"? I fear you're getting the terms confused.
Reply 17
Avatar for tehforum
tehforum
OP
20
Original post by slickrick666999
Is the majority saying that with certainty or do you suspect it? As I said, these issues have been occuring for years. Why is everybody now speaking up when it's on Muslims? :confused:

The Media ran storys for 4/5 days on the Toulouser shooter being a Far-Right affiliate and Neo-Nazism/Facism on the rise. I read one story online tagged 'Minority communities on stand-by'.

Yet 4 or 5 days afer looking for this far-right, white frenchman, they actually discovered the shooter was a Muslim. Story seemed to go a bit cold after that....But I do not remember anybody getting particularly angry about non-muslims being blamed. I guess because maybe accusing white people isn't exactly Politically incorrect by definition..


See point 2, paragraph 1 of the article for evidence. Everyone is speaking up when its possibly Muslims because the media is heavily focused on it. What comparative groups were you thinking of?
Original post by Kiss
You can't blame Americans for suspecting the most notorious group which has repeatedly demonstrated it is not a religion of peace. Now I'm not saying that a radical Muslim group is responsible as of yet, but you are in no position to blame people for thinking rationally in light of previous terrorist attacks. You can't tar all of Islam under one brush but at the same time you can't expect Americans not to be pissed off.


Yes, I don't expect Americans and the media to acquiesce to these attacks. But as above, see point 2, para 1, their claims are disgusting and completely unprofessional. The media whatever their stance, should remain impartial until the facts are out, until then it's all speculation. Once the facts are out, and maybe the attackers turn out to be Muslim then propound your right wing views to the readership of their respective newspaper.
Original post by iamgreatness
Didn't you read what i put? statistically. Statistics dont have any prejudice. its based on empirical knowledge. dont bother replying if you're going to chat some left wing ****.


I did see that part but statistics means little at the moment. Also it rather depends on the source of the stats. You are at best using the stats to mask your beliefs and prejudices to blame one group before any proof or indication has revealed members of that group are to blame so what I said sticks. Tough titties if you don't like it.
Original post by Kiss
Ahhhh The Guardian. Prime example of doublespeak, ass kissing to anyone non-white, and hatred of British/Western ethos.

The exploitation of a human tragedy never goes amiss.


I agree. If I could thumbs up I would.

I wouldn't particularly claim that the Guardian are anti British, but the media has proven itself to be very, very PC and very pro-multiculturalism. They've pretty much reserved the word racist for white people exclusively over the past 30 years. White on minority crimes seem to get a lot more attention, comments only become 'controversial' when they're against minorities, or come out of a white persons mouth.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you