Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How people in the West react to reports of terrorism/ other tragedies Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    lol this is so true.

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Seems accurate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How do people in Africa react to the Brussels terror attack?
    Many don't even know it happened.


    Terror attacks like in Middle East are by Muslims against Muslims

    Muslims are pretty much guests in Europe, and we're being killed and raped because of our tolerance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's almost like people can't help caring more about things they feel they can relate to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gustavis)
    How do people in Africa react to the Brussels terror attack?
    Many don't even know it happened.


    Terror attacks like in Middle East are by Muslims against Muslims

    Muslims are pretty much guests in Europe, and we're being killed and raped because of our tolerance.
    Yes, and the US + allies in general are so tolerant that they bomb Muslims from the sky, and those they don't kill, they torture them and lock them up in cages.

    Phew, it's a good thing they're not intolerant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Threads like this are always stupid. The same ones popped up after paris.

    Simple answer:

    Its perfectly normal and natural to care more about things that are close to you.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Extreme ends of the spectrum would be comparing something happening in your family.. to something happening to a person you have never met. Ofcourse you would care more about your family. Countries are more towards the middleground of the spectrum, but obviously there will be some countries that we care about more then others.


    Reasons why we care more about Belgium/France:

    1. They are our allies
    2. We share a long history
    3. They are geographically close to us (increasing fear)
    4. They are culturally similar to us (we can relate and empathize more)
    5. They are politically aligned with us


    So really.. to all those who are complaining why this attack gets more coverage then other ones.. just ask yourself this - what would you care more about? your next door neighbor dies, who you have had round to parties, and grown up with.... or a man on a different street, who you don't really know dies.

    Then promptly shut up.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    This issue is a nice example of western individualism causing problems for our society. The idea of why should we care more about Belgium, is one that in other countries that have a less individualistic approach to life, find very simple.

    My wife who is not English would say 'of course you care more, they are a close friend to your country..' For her, she comes from a non-individualistic country, where the 'group' is prioritized above the individual. Its easy for her to rationalize why you should care about people in your 'group' more then people outside it, because that's the nature of where she grew up.

    In the west however, we prioritize the individual, group mentality is seen as a negative thing in many cases, and as a result everyone should be seen to have equal worth, regardless of what former-group you would have fit in. It does not matter if you are from Europe, Africa, or any other identifier, because we are all the same, and should be treated as such.

    Its a lovely idea on paper, but in practice its one that does not work. It would work, if all people agreed, but sadly they don't. We have many groups within society who prioritize the group, and will do all they can to progress their group at the expense of others. In the place of this, a western society who tries to priorities and place importance on all, will always fail, Defeated by the power gained by working collectively.

    Honestly, the individualistic equal mentality of the west is both one of its greatest strengths, but also its biggest weakness.. Look at countries like Sweden as a good example of this. They try so hard to treat everyone as an individual of the same worth. But do you think their minority groups believe the same? Does the new Islamic immigrant community believe itself to be of equal importance/worth to the native population? Not really.. so they will do all they can to progress the needs, values and success of their group, without caring about others. Whilst the Swedish will continue to care about everyone and keep everyone's interest at heart, despite clear signs that its causing negative effects on them as a group themselves.

    All in all, the consequences of individualism in the west, is something I find quite interesting, and this thread is a great example.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Which is why the US presidents wife has probably never even heard about a muslim atrocity in Africa... wait what.
    Name:  newyorkpost-headline.jpg
Views: 109
Size:  209.1 KB


    TBH there seems to be less media reaction to the Brussels attacks than there was to Paris 13/Nov (bataclan) or Paris 7/Jan (charlie hebdo)...

    I don't think that's a good thing for Muslims living in the west though or ones hoping to come live here...

    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    Yes, and the US + allies in general are so tolerant that they bomb Muslims from the sky, and those they don't kill, they torture them and lock them up in cages.

    Phew, it's a good thing they're not intolerant.
    I've noticed we never seem to hear much from muslims drawing attention to how intolerant muslims can be... it's not like muslim countries are all rainbows and unicorns.

    e.g. 13 Jan 2016 Quetta 14 dead in suicide bombing at a vaccination centre (allah loves polio?) http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...city-of-quetta

    20 Jan 2016 Charsadda 30 dead in terrorist attack on university http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ttack-pakistan

    16 Mar 2016 Peshawar 15 dead in terrorist bus bombing http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ment-officials

    but for some reason that's much less tragic than

    13 Nov 2015 US claims Jihad John killed by drone strike http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...o-isis-says-us

    20 Jan 2016 ISIS confirms the accuracy of the above claim http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-isis-magazine

    ---

    So to make sure I've got this right - you're saying that islamically speaking random killing of innocent people is better than carefully targetted killing of guilty murderers?

    or is it that muslims killing muslims is always better than westerners killing muslims regardless of anything else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's not like we see memorials for the victims of the Belgian attacks in these countries now is it.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Europeans are my brethern and of course i regard their lives as more important than non Europeans
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Spot on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gucci Mane.)
    lol this is so true.

    Too true! Apparently, some lives are worth more than others, even though we live in democracies, where people are meant to be EQUAL!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If a Christian bombed Muslim lands, there would be anti-Christian riots, the West shows amazing levels of calm and restraint the rest of the world should learn a lesson from.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slutty Salafi)
    If a Christian bombed Muslim lands, there would be anti-Christian riots, the West shows amazing levels of calm and restraint the rest of the world should learn a lesson from.
    Or stupidity and extreme cowardice. We should tell the world if you bomb us one more time then mecca is going up in smoke. That will inspire a bit more self-policing from muslim communities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Or stupidity and extreme cowardice. We should tell the world if you bomb us one more time then mecca is going up in smoke. That will inspire a bit more self-policing from muslim communities.
    You are 100% correct, ignoring the obvious immorality of the suggestion.


    Right now we have a situation where powerful nations are being taken on and defeated by weaker, poorer nations. The powerful nations lose because they lack the necessary ''balls'' to just go there. If there were a willingness to extract a price so extreme that it made both the initial act of terror or insurrection as well as any advantage gained (by the terrorists) from revenge attacks for that price extracted, seem pale in comparison, the terror and insurrection would cease.


    People say America lost Vietnam because they were too harsh, nothing whatsoever, including My Lai even remotely comes close the level of brutality the Soviet Union showed their enemies.


    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-...3892_1_soviets
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Someone poops in the toilet - not surprised.

    Someone poops on the dining table - surprised.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slutty Salafi)
    You are 100% correct.


    Right now we have a situation where powerful nations are being taken on and defeated by weaker, poorer nations. The powerful nations lose because they lack the necessary ''balls'' to just go there. If there were a willingness to extract a price so extreme that it made both the initial act of terror or insurrection as well as any advantage gained (by the terrorists) from revenge attacks for that price extracted, seem pale in comparison, the terror and insurrection would cease.


    People say America lost Vietnam because they were too harsh, nothing whatsoever, including My Lai even remotely comes close the level of brutality the Soviet Union showed their enemies.


    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-...3892_1_soviets
    Strong cultures require strong rulers. The weak rulers are perfectly capable of ruling calm civilised people who don't have an obvious antagonist. They don't have what it takes to rule strong masculine cultures, which is why the lunatics are running the asylum in Europe.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slutty Salafi)
    You are 100% correct, ignoring the obvious immorality of the suggestion.


    Right now we have a situation where powerful nations are being taken on and defeated by weaker, poorer nations. The powerful nations lose because they lack the necessary ''balls'' to just go there. If there were a willingness to extract a price so extreme that it made both the initial act of terror or insurrection as well as any advantage gained (by the terrorists) from revenge attacks for that price extracted, seem pale in comparison, the terror and insurrection would cease.


    People say America lost Vietnam because they were too harsh, nothing whatsoever, including My Lai even remotely comes close the level of brutality the Soviet Union showed their enemies.


    http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-...3892_1_soviets
    America lost in Vietnam because it failed to properly understand how insurgency works. And it seems that you don't, either. Sheer destructive force doesn't accomplish much unless you can provide an alternative to it, otherwise people have nothing to lose by fighting, and plenty to gain. Plus global opinion effectively becomes a field of battle.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    America lost in Vietnam because it failed to properly understand how insurgency works. And it seems that you don't, either. Sheer destructive force doesn't accomplish much unless you can provide an alternative to it, otherwise people have nothing to lose by fighting, and plenty to gain. Plus global opinion effectively becomes a field of battle.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So how come the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese didn't continue to fight after the allies + Soviets utterly smashed them? Equally how come the Soviets managed to hold onto the territories they ruled during the cold war?


    There are obviously deep moral considerations, Islamic State, for how menacing they might look, haven't committed nearly as much evil as the Germans during WW2 so the number of dead civilians in the cities they hold would clearly be worse than any safety gained for the West, but I'm still not convinced it wouldn't work in the strict sense of the word.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slutty Salafi)
    So how come the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese didn't continue to fight after the allies + Soviets utterly smashed them? Equally how come the Soviets managed to hold onto the territories they ruled during the cold war?
    WW2 was a conventional war between states, not an insurgency, so they can't be compared. The Soviets had their failures to understand insurgency too - in Afghanistan.

    WW2 was about taking and holding territory, with clear front lines, and defeating states. There are no similarly clear measures of victory or defeat with insurgency.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.