This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- Can somebody mark my practice for GCSE Poetry?
- Compare how the poets explore the power of nature in 'The Prelude"and one other poem.
- Help with gcse poem comparison
- Setting/Places In A Christmas Carol
- Stressing about RAF
- English Lit Precdtions
- Would A-Level Maths and Physics be helpful with Pilot training?
- Girls, do you mind being called 'chicks', 'birds', 'broads' etc?
- AQA Power and Conflict poems to compare to eachother
- alevels for aerospace engineering
- gcse aqa power and conflict
- Ask Me Anything - Been accepted to Generation easyJet Programme
- The 4 poem method - GCSE AQA conflict poetry 2018
- give me some opinions of what should I apply for university
- PREDICTIONS of lit inspector calls 2023 AQA
- What mental health/personality disorder is this?
- Becoming an pilot within the RAF
- Is this workplace bullying?
- RAF application for pilot
Why isn't the the Kamikaze Pilot being called the T word?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ShotsFired-9941
Maybe we could brand pentagon as a terrorist organization 
http://www.businessinsider.com/saddam-husseins-life-was-deemed-worth-29-civilian-lives-as-the-us-invaded-iraq-2015-3
http://www.businessinsider.com/saddam-husseins-life-was-deemed-worth-29-civilian-lives-as-the-us-invaded-iraq-2015-3
Well why not? Seems perfectly reasonable. Plus they were POLITICALLY motivated right? See the keywords we have to use now when defining terrorists?
Original post by queen-bee
Well why not? Seems perfectly reasonable. Plus they were POLITICALLY motivated right? See the keywords we have to use now when defining terrorists?
But they aren't, at least the majority aren't muslims...
Jokes aside; what pentagon did was indefensible and shows how ironic bush's "War On Terror" was
A terrible cycle that will continue its course unless one side (ie the wiser side) lays down the guns and open negotiations
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ShotsFired-9941
But they aren't, at least the majority aren't muslims...
What I wonder is why haven't bush and Blair both been served what they deserve for killing innocent civilians
Original post by queen-bee
What I wonder is why haven't bush and Blair both been served what they deserve for killing innocent civilians
If there's one thing I want to see in my lifetime then it's this
Original post by Urahara
If there's one thing I want to see in my lifetime then it's this
I hope so. I'm sure the Iraqis will all be rejoicing
Terrorists are non-state actors that act violently for a political cause.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
Original post by kurofune
Terrorists are non-state actors that act violently for a political cause.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
What do you mean by non-state?
If a person successfully destabilises a peaceful environment with acts of violence shouldn't he be labeled a terrorist? (I'm referring to an American guy who went ballistic on some uniformed guy at the airport)
Original post by kurofune
Terrorists are non-state actors that act violently for a political cause.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
The literal translation for kamikaze is divine wind, but also refers to Japanese fighters in WW2 that deliberately crashed their planes into Allied ships to hinder the Allies.
Neither definition refers to Andreas Lubitz, the Germanair co-pilot. Why this thread has evolved into an argument about racist portrayal of terrorists is beyond me. Some of you people need to pick up a book on international relations.
Because this is TSR, everything gets turned into an argument about race, religion, gender or feminism. That is just how it goes.
Original post by DiceTheSlice
What do you mean by non-state?
If a person successfully destabilises a peaceful environment with acts of violence shouldn't he be labeled a terrorist? (I'm referring to an American guy who went ballistic on some uniformed guy at the airport)
If a person successfully destabilises a peaceful environment with acts of violence shouldn't he be labeled a terrorist? (I'm referring to an American guy who went ballistic on some uniformed guy at the airport)
I was under the assumption that it was referring to the Germanair co-pilot and judging by some of the posts, they thought so too.
Anyways, the definition of a terrorist is an individual not working for a state (so someone that's not working for a state's behalf) that commits violent acts for a political purpose-that's the definition set forth by scholars. If they don't meet the definition (HAS to be politically motivated) then they aren't a terrorist.
Original post by DiddyDec
Because this is TSR, everything gets turned into an argument about race, religion, gender or feminism. That is just how it goes.
LOLLLLL some of these people are just so annoying. Not against debates on racism, but create a new thread instead of derailing this one (not directed towards you, but more towards queen-bee and etc.)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by kurofune
LOLLLLL some of these people are just so annoying. Not against debates on racism, but create a new thread instead of derailing this one (not directed towards you, but more towards queen-bee and etc.)
The thread was answered in the first page in fact it was answered in the first response. No point cluttering up the forum with endless threads about the same topic so they just use this thread to debate endlessly about the topics over and over again making no progress whatsoever. That is just TSR.
The point is, if this was a Muslim then so many people would immediately assume that it was a terrorist attack. The fact this guy isn't a Muslim and is white means nobody instantly thinks 'it must have been a terrorist attack'. People are saying in this thread that it wasn't politically or religiously motivated yet an attack by a Muslim may not be politically or religiously motivated yet many instantly assume that it must be, purely due to the fact that they're a Muslim. If a Muslim had done this then the newspapers would be full of tripe such as 'Muslim intentionally crashes plane killing hundreds on board' as they'd jump instantly to conclusions, nevermind all the racist assumptions all over social media. Don't pretend that is not the case.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
Original post by Europhile
The point is, if this was a Muslim then so many people would immediately assume that it was a terrorist attack. The fact this guy isn't a Muslim and is white means nobody instantly thinks 'it must have been a terrorist attack'. People are saying in this thread that it wasn't politically or religiously motivated yet an attack by a Muslim may not be politically or religiously motivated yet many instantly assume that it must be, purely due to the fact that they're a Muslim. If a Muslim had done this then the newspapers would be full of tripe such as 'Muslim intentionally crashes plane killing hundreds on board' as they'd jump instantly to conclusions, nevermind all the racist assumptions all over social media. Don't pretend that is not the case.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
How is it tripe when that is exactly what would have happened?
Okay sure people might assume he was a terroristy if he were a Muslim. That's because of the effect Muslim attacks have had on our consciousness; humans intuitively jump to the obvious inductive assumption based on experience. But that's trivial; 15 years ago we'd be making the same assumptions about Irish people.
Original post by KingStannis
How is it tripe when that is exactly what would have happened?
Not all attacks by Muslims are religiously or politically motivated regardless of what your subconscious lines of thinking would have you believe. In the case of the story that has emerged, yes it would be what had happened. I was more referring to a general plane crash. We know now that it was intentionally crashed. Even if a plane wasn't intentionally crashed and it emerged the pilot was a Muslim there'd still be those suggesting, for the very reasons highlighted below, that it must have been a terrorist attack.
Okay sure people might assume he was a terroristy if he were a Muslim. That's because of the effect Muslim attacks have had on our consciousness; humans intuitively jump to the obvious inductive assumption based on experience. But that's trivial; 15 years ago we'd be making the same assumptions about Irish people.
That doesn't make it right. The fact is, when a Muslim commits an attack everyone assumes its politically and/or religiously motivated. When its a white person everyone assumes the person is insane and must be suffering mental health issues, unless facts later emerge to suggest otherwise as was the case with Breivik.
Original post by Europhile
Not all attacks by Muslims are religiously or politically motivated regardless of what your subconscious lines of thinking would have you believe. In the case of the story that has emerged, yes it would be what had happened. I was more referring to a general plane crash. We know now that it was intentionally crashed. Even if a plane wasn't intentionally crashed and it emerged the pilot was a Muslim there'd still be those suggesting, for the very reasons highlighted below, that it must have been a terrorist attack.
That doesn't make it right. The fact is, when a Muslim commits an attack everyone assumes its politically and/or religiously motivated. When its a white person everyone assumes the person is insane and must be suffering mental health issues, unless facts later emerge to suggest otherwise as was the case with Breivik.
That doesn't make it right. The fact is, when a Muslim commits an attack everyone assumes its politically and/or religiously motivated. When its a white person everyone assumes the person is insane and must be suffering mental health issues, unless facts later emerge to suggest otherwise as was the case with Breivik.
It's neither right nor wrong, it's just probabilistic reasoning. The Islamic World is currently waging a Jihad against the West you know. Once the facts emerge then everybody would change their mind.
It's not about race, it's about what group of people are currently the most active terrorists.
Original post by Europhile
The point is, if this was a Muslim then so many people would immediately assume that it was a terrorist attack. The fact this guy isn't a Muslim and is white means nobody instantly thinks 'it must have been a terrorist attack'. People are saying in this thread that it wasn't politically or religiously motivated yet an attack by a Muslim may not be politically or religiously motivated yet many instantly assume that it must be, purely due to the fact that they're a Muslim. If a Muslim had done this then the newspapers would be full of tripe such as 'Muslim intentionally crashes plane killing hundreds on board' as they'd jump instantly to conclusions, nevermind all the racist assumptions all over social media. Don't pretend that is not the case.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
Based on current world events, it is an understandable connection to make when a Muslim individual mass-murders a whole group of people. But, as you've since pointed out, it doesn't necessarily make it a just assumption. A similar state of affairs existed with Irish persons when the IRA were most active.
Nevertheless, Muslims form part of the year-to-year murderer demographic in Western (and other) nations, and most of them aren't branded as terrorists. In addition, when white or non-Muslim people commit acts of mass murder and/or destruction, the public and media quite often do consider them terrorists when something is revealed about their background which may allude to it (e.g. a history of radical environmentalism, nationalism/separatism, etc.), just as being revealed to be a Muslim might. Yes, Muslims are burdened with an unfortunate stereotype, but who is to blame for that? A very long list of individuals citing Islam as the source of their motivations -- and then there's ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab... the list goes on and on. Ya' can't really blame people for jumping to conclusions.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Europhile
The point is, if this was a Muslim then so many people would immediately assume that it was a terrorist attack. The fact this guy isn't a Muslim and is white means nobody instantly thinks 'it must have been a terrorist attack'. People are saying in this thread that it wasn't politically or religiously motivated yet an attack by a Muslim may not be politically or religiously motivated yet many instantly assume that it must be, purely due to the fact that they're a Muslim. If a Muslim had done this then the newspapers would be full of tripe such as 'Muslim intentionally crashes plane killing hundreds on board' as they'd jump instantly to conclusions, nevermind all the racist assumptions all over social media. Don't pretend that is not the case.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
People love to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon before all of the facts are established. Nobody immediately thinks terrorist attack when it's a white non Muslim guy. They're only labelled a terrorist once it's been established that there was political/religious motivation involved. Breivik wasn't labelled a terrorist until his far right links and beliefs were revealed. Nobody thought he was a terrorist before that or started calling him a terrorist. The vast majority of people assumed he was just an insane person who committed a horrible crime, just like the many carried out in America.
I saw lots of people on the internet who thought immediately it was a terrorist attack.
Original post by queen-bee
I don't remember Anders breivik being called a terrorist even tho he belonged to a dangerous right wing group/had extreme views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/9206376/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Norway-terrorist-attacks-in-pictures.html
There you go. And for good measure, here's another group of white people everybody calls terrorists.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ira-plotted-terrorist-attacks-on-northern-irelands-transport-infrastructure-court-hears-30986643.html
Original post by Europhile
The point is, if this was a Muslim then so many people would immediately assume that it was a terrorist attack.
The other point is, that it categorically was not a terrorist attack.
Related discussions
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- Can somebody mark my practice for GCSE Poetry?
- Compare how the poets explore the power of nature in 'The Prelude"and one other poem.
- Help with gcse poem comparison
- Setting/Places In A Christmas Carol
- Stressing about RAF
- English Lit Precdtions
- Would A-Level Maths and Physics be helpful with Pilot training?
- Girls, do you mind being called 'chicks', 'birds', 'broads' etc?
- AQA Power and Conflict poems to compare to eachother
- alevels for aerospace engineering
- gcse aqa power and conflict
- Ask Me Anything - Been accepted to Generation easyJet Programme
- The 4 poem method - GCSE AQA conflict poetry 2018
- give me some opinions of what should I apply for university
- PREDICTIONS of lit inspector calls 2023 AQA
- What mental health/personality disorder is this?
- Becoming an pilot within the RAF
- Is this workplace bullying?
- RAF application for pilot
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 3C (9FM0 3C) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 minutes ago
Best university for (mechanical) engineering?Last reply 6 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Falmouth University or University for the Creative Arts for Animation?Last reply 10 minutes ago
"Can't you hear me, S.O.S.?": TLG's PhD study blog!Last reply 12 minutes ago
Should I reapply to Cambridge if I get good results?Last reply 12 minutes ago
Briefly describe your skincare routine (if you have one)Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 16 minutes ago
Help - QMUL (PWC Flying Start) vs Bath (Accounting &Finance) vs UCL (IMB)Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL 2023 Undergraduate Applicants ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
Choosing Subjects for S5 to study Software engineering in the UkTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxesTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
