The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Media Double Standards: Muslim Vs White Terrorist

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for jdddd
jdddd
19
Original post by soIiIoquy
okay.


What do you mean 'okay.'? Its true, you have no idea hahaha
Do you know what the definition of a terrorist even is?
Terrorist is defined as unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims- We completely understand the definition. Especially the last part.

So essentially violence must be politically motivated to truly and dearly constitute terrorism. That's officials take on this.

Whether or not this guy met the criteria and definition, we know as a fact he created extreme distress and fear amongst innocent children and teachers at school. By definition he TERRORISED them. No mention of that word either- interesting.

It's not ISIS soldiers who are behind the most disgusting mass shootings in schools and concerts in the US, its White American men like paddock, roof, and Adam Lanza also.

Dont get me wrong those who decide it's ok to create extreme distress and terror in any nation deserve to be called and described by the most atrocious of ways to describe evil. But so do white Americans terrorising people and they should not be displayed as "lone wolves" or even "gunman" it simply does not weigh out their actions.

James Alex Fields is a white American man killing Heyer when he plowed his car into Charlottesville crowd with the alleged Political motivation of targeting counter protesters - sorry? Politically motivated? But.. No mention whatsoever of a Terrorist, Extremist? You and me both deep down now for a fact. For a fact that there is more media coverage against Muslims- you see I simply couldn't care less about the terrorists who do this- but as a result of negative coverage using ways to suit medias agenda, this is having serious implications on Muslims all around the world. It means we go sleep in our cosy beds whilst muslims, innocent families suffer because of approach taken by media. Fact.

When "radicalised islamic terrorists" attack we wage war against them, I mean come on Trump does it anyway with the absence of attacks anyway- banning Muslims into US, sharing videos of Britain first-? Islamaphobia at its prime.

Trump and officials may very well declare terrorism when it suits them, but everyone know what happened on Wednesday was terrorism against innocent civilians. But what's sad is for those who lost their lives on that day, we have to say 'oh sorry mate it was just another shooting, not terrorism' - when someone has extreme views like this they simply don't care about the political implications, they just want to terrorise- its sad how the murderer needs a political view to then justify being called terrorist. I'm sure if political aims were held, they wouldnt be called terrorist anyway just like media swerved from calling James Alex a White terrorist he was.

Muslim terrorist attacks- borders are closed, hatred spread, severe actions taken. Then please tell me, allegedly a 'mentally unstable' terrorist shoots civilians- why is trump avoiding discussions over gun control in his tweet. For sure if I was a victim, I'd want immediate gun control legislations in place to ensure no atrocity like this ever happens again. So after Las Vegas shootings, Orlando, Texas and now parkland school- it sounds as these 'unstable' extremists don't pose a risk until terror is committed.
There is no double standard. A killer who was committing an act of terror (violence in pursuit of a political goal) will be called a terrorist, and a mentally ill person who kills a bunch of people for no clear reason will be called mentally ill. Perhaps more white shooters really do happen to be the latter.

You cannot reliably come go the conclusion that there is a double standard when all you are basing your conclusion on is a subjective interpretation of what you happen to remember seeing on the news. Apparently some people also have trouble understanding what terrorism is.

There is no proof at all that white people will automatically be portayed one way and Muslims, for example, in another. It mostly seems to depend on their actual background and what they did (surprise).
Original post by Underscore__
Shock, another person who doesn’t understand the meaning of terrorism in law


This.

Original post by _Fergo
Terrorism underlines political motives for said atrocities.

Muslims committing said atrocities are terrorists because they do it for political reasons - namely think the west is corrupted, far too liberal, rejects Islam and whatnot.

Individuals who pick up a gun and go murder innocent people may be horrible but are not terrorists if there isn't a political reason underlying their actions. If he had done it in pursuance of a political goal, namely to showcase that the second amendment must be repealed, or that the current administration is at fault for something, then he'd most likely be labled a terrorist by the media.

Posted from TSR Mobile


This.

Original post by 999tigger
You are too busy being a victim and not paying attention to the definition if what a terrorist is. It undermines your whole OP which is wrong.

Oklahoma bombers they were white terrorists.

So far as we know the Florida shootings were about revenge on the school and kids who rejected and expelled him. He wasnt seeking to persuade the government on any political agenda.


And also this.
Original post by ReadySalted28
Terrorist is defined as unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims- We completely understand the definition. Especially the last part.

So essentially violence must be politically motivated to truly and dearly constitute terrorism. That's officials take on this.

Whether or not this guy met the criteria and definition, we know as a fact he created extreme distress and fear amongst innocent children and teachers at school. By definition he TERRORISED them. No mention of that word either- interesting.


"He doesn't fit the definition but lets ignore that and include him anyway."
Original post by jdddd
What do you mean 'okay.'? Its true, you have no idea hahaha


hahahahahah
Reply 27
Avatar for jdddd
jdddd
19
Original post by soIiIoquy
hahahahahah


Whats that all about? Nice argument lol
Original post by Chaz254
Unsurprisingly the kids on this website don't even understand the terms they are using. "Terrorism" means an act has to have political motives. ISIS hate the western way of life and our governments' foreign policy. They have a vendetta against the West.

Some random kid shooting up a school has no political motive; he does not kill people because he hates the government, therefore he's not a terrorist.


What about that time that old white man drove into Muslims at a mosque. He had political motives, yet wasn't called a terrorist.
Original post by ultimateradman
What about that time that old white man drove into Muslims at a mosque. He had political motives, yet wasn't called a terrorist.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/22/finsbury-park-terror-attack-trial-darren-osborne-brainwashed/ oh but he was called a terrorist... no one has denied that the attack on Finsbury Park was an terrorist attack... Darren Osborne has been charged with terror related charges
Original post by ultimateradman
What about that time that old white man drove into Muslims at a mosque. He had political motives, yet wasn't called a terrorist.


Original post by CountBrandenburg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/22/finsbury-park-terror-attack-trial-darren-osborne-brainwashed/ oh but he was called a terrorist... no one has denied that the attack on Finsbury Park was an terrorist attack... Darren Osborne has been charged with terror related charges


:biggrin:
Considering it is easier to label a muslim a terrorist when they are saying the crime is behalf of a terrorist organisation, ISIS... Whereas we don't know the full extent if a "white" person committed it.
Reply 32
Avatar for Wikia
Wikia
21
Original post by Just my opinion
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=terrorist+definition&oq=terrorist&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i61j0j5j0.13232j0j7&client=ms-android-motorola&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8


terroristˈtɛrərɪst/noun

1.

1.a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"synonyms:bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More




Original post by HighOnGoofballs
Do you know what the definition of a terrorist even is?


Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.
Original post by Wikia
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.


But religion and politics are inherently linked in a way. To act violent in terms of religion is to make a statement about the current politics and why they disagree with our life, hence we can class an Islamist motive as terrorism. The same can be said of hatred for the west, hating a set of countries based on its ideals is entirely political and therefore their acts to cause a reaction and disorder can be called terrorism, because they believe western views in incompatible to their own.
Original post by Wikia
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.


Do you realise hatred of the west is inherently a political aim? To break down our societies because they hate our way of life. They want to see our governments fall. By engaging in terrorist attacks, terrorists most likely feel they're highlighting the fragility of state control and how the public affairs of a given country can be attacked so menacingly.

So it is terrorism, down to the T.
Reply 35
Avatar for Wikia
Wikia
21
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
To break down our societies because they hate our way of life. They want to see our governments fall.


Oh okay, so would you say that the Americans were the terrorists during the Cuban crisis in the 60s? Were their ambitions of containment against communism acts of terrorism? The Bay of Pigs fiasco was essentially terrorism is that sense. The FBI were terrorists too. Why do we not define them as so?

Double standards I'm afraid. As long as it's against the agenda it's terrorism, if it's on the agenda it's fighting for freedom.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Wikia
Oh okay, so would you say that the Americans were the terrorists during the Cuban crisis in the 60s? Were their ambitions of containment against communism acts of terrorism? The Bay of Pigs fiasco was essentially terrorism is that sense. The FBI were terrorists too. Why do we not define them as so?

Double standards I'm afraid. As long as it's against the agenda it's terrorism, if it's on the agenda it's fighting for freedom.


Well, I'm not some sort of American apologist. I'm sure they are considered terrorists by many people, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Original post by Wikia
Most alleged terrorists do not have political pursuits, they're motivated by their religion/hatred of the West - they don't care for the government or the public affairs of the country, they're only focused on causing damage. They're not really a 'terrorist' in that sense either.


Then no one is a "terrorist" and we can just call them mass murderers to please goalpost movers, e.g. you.

Right. Not sure what difference you believe this will make, since to the government in question it makes absolutely no difference what people call it, the modus operandi and motives are different, so they can't deal with it the same way.
Original post by soIiIoquy
mhm double standards.

if a muslim does it = extremist/isis/terrorist
if a white man/woman does it = its okay, they're mentally ill.


and its funny because i've never heard of any hindu extremists or sikh terrorists in the media and we know for a fact that they do exist.

the media is evil, fr...


It is, but you're clueless if you think that this is how the MSM operates. In particular, CNN.
Original post by CountBrandenburg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/22/finsbury-park-terror-attack-trial-darren-osborne-brainwashed/ oh but he was called a terrorist... no one has denied that the attack on Finsbury Park was an terrorist attack... Darren Osborne has been charged with terror related charges


Plenty of media outlets did not call him a terrorist, including the BBC, until outrage at that fact. Yes he has been charged, but as this was calling out the media my point still stands.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you