Why isn't the the Kamikaze Pilot being called the T word? Watch

This discussion is closed.
queen-bee
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#261
Report 4 years ago
#261
(Original post by ShotsFired-9941)
Maybe we could brand pentagon as a terrorist organization

http://www.businessinsider.com/sadda...ed-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?
0
ShotsFired-9941
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#262
Report 4 years ago
#262
(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...:confused:


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
0
queen-bee
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#263
Report 4 years ago
#263
(Original post by ShotsFired-9941)
But they aren't, at least the majority aren't muslims...:confused:
What I wonder is why haven't bush and Blair both been served what they deserve for killing innocent civilians
0
Urahara
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#264
Report 4 years ago
#264
(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
0
queen-bee
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#265
Report 4 years ago
#265
(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
0
TomAyy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#266
Report 4 years ago
#266
you're so salty. Anyway, I'm sure we're called terrorists in the east and they honor those who kill us
1
kurofune
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#267
Report 4 years ago
#267
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.
1
TaintedLight
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#268
Report 4 years ago
#268
(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.
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)
0
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#269
Report 4 years ago
#269
(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.
Because this is TSR, everything gets turned into an argument about race, religion, gender or feminism. That is just how it goes.
1
kurofune
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#270
Report 4 years ago
#270
(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)
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.)
0
DiddyDec
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#271
Report 4 years ago
#271
(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.
1
Europhile
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#272
Report 4 years ago
#272
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.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#273
Report 4 years ago
#273
(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.
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.
0
Europhile
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#274
Report 4 years ago
#274
(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.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#275
Report 4 years ago
#275
(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.
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.
0
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#276
Report 4 years ago
#276
(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.
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.
0
coatsoft
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#277
Report 4 years ago
#277
Ive heard quite a few people call him a **** actually
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#278
Report 4 years ago
#278
(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.
I saw lots of people on the internet who thought immediately it was a terrorist attack.
0
Greenlaner
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#279
Report 4 years ago
#279
(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/worl...-pictures.html

There you go. And for good measure, here's another group of white people everybody calls terrorists.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-30986643.html
0
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#280
Report 4 years ago
#280
(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.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (69)
23.71%
No (222)
76.29%

Watched Threads

View All