Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'?

[shivajithesavior]

Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes of others are treated as acts carried out in some type of frustration, asks Syed Hassan Kazim

Norway is in sorrow and mourning since nearly a year because a 'maniac', 'mad man', 'rogue', 'mentally derailed' but not a 'terrorist' Anders Behring Breivik slaughtered 77 victims in Oslo, amid widespread global condemnation. The horrible massacre brought home a great reality for the European countries, that not everyone who commits massacres and killings is a Muslim.

It's not at all a surprise that immediately after that gruesome act the media the world over started to put the blame for the massacre on Muslims and Muslim organisations without giving a second thought to the fact that the one who carried out that act could be a Christian too. That particular act by Brevik started a debate about the nature of tolerance and freedom in Norway. Many media outlets across the globe, who are biased against everything Muslim, started to flash the news that, 'Muslim terrorists have slaughtered innocent Norwegian civilians' or 'Islamic terrorism reaches Norway'.

A couple of days back the same thing happened in America's Denver, Colorado, when a 'mad man', a 'mentally derailed' person but not a 'terrorist', James Holmes, attacked a cinema in Aurora town, and killed 12 innocent people while injuring 57 others during the the screening of the movie Dark Knight [ Images ] Rises. Holmes, who killed innocents, was for a while regarded as a terror suspect by a few media channels that never miss a chance to blame Muslims after all terror attacks. They changed their tone only after it was known that he was not a Muslim.

Our hearts must go out for the victims who are killed in such brutal attacks no matter if they are Americans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans or Palestinians. But the way each and every terror attack no matter by whom, is branded as an act of Islamic terror is something which we must condemn. No one has the right to demonise a whole community just because of the act of a few maniacs who happen to be Muslims.

Despite knowing the fact that most Muslims around the world are peace-loving, government agencies and the media around the world left no stone unturned to demonise the whole community as some sort of a terrorist community or as one sympathetic towards the ones who carry out terror acts.

The question is: would the response of the world media have been the same if the perpetrators of the massacres in Oslo and Colarado had been Muslims? The answer is 'no'. Many theories would have been propped up with the help of the government agencies and biased media to prove that the killers were having some affiliation to groups like the Al Qaeda [ Images ], Hizb-ut Tahrir and the many forms of Lashkar.

We must find out why such biases exist. Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes by others are treated as acts carried out in frustration and desperation? Why is an American soldier who goes berserk and kills innocent Afghan women, children and old men called a rogue soldier while the same act done by an Afghan Muslim would have been easily regarded as an act of 'Islamic terrorism'.

In a condolence message after the Colarado massacre, US President Barack Obama [ Images ] said , 'The people we lost in Aurora loved and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbours. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled'. Does it mean that the people whose lives were (and continue to be) horrifically cut short by US drones and NATO bombs based on the decisions of Obama were, of course, none of the above? They, of course, did not deserve to have hopes for the future.

Does the Nobel laureate American president think that the victims of the American bombing expeditions deserve drones and cluster bombs? It's high time America understands the fact that terrorism cannot be fought selectively. It's not only the Muslims who are terrorists but if an American soldier runs amok in the bad lands of Iraq and Afghanistan, he must also be treated at par with an Al Qaeda or Taliban [ Images ] terror suspect.

America must know and learn how to mourn 'others' who are killed by its drones on a daily basis. This indifference towards the 'others' from the Third World is one of the main reasons behind such anger towards America and its policies. May the departed souls in Colarado, Oslo, Afghanistan and Iraq rest in peace and may America learn and start to respect the 'others'.

But it's not only America but Indians and our government which is busy witch-hunting Muslim youth on false grounds, who must also learn the above lesson.

Syed Hassan Kazim is from the Nelson Mandela [ Images ] Centre for Peace and Conflict, Jamia Millia Islamia
Syed Hassan Kazim

Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'? - Rediff.com India News

 

[Bhairava]

A terrorist is one who indulges in wanton,premeditated violence against the state/civilians in pursuit of certain political/religious goals.

Now please tell me what was the political/religious motive of the Denver shooter ?

Moreover one-off cases are likely to be dismissed as aberrations and not the rule. Human nature.

p.s: I agree Anders Breivik was a terrorist.

 

[notsuperstitious]

People like Anders Behring Breivik and those who bombed Samjhauta express are terrorists as they systematically targeted civilians in pursuit of their goals. The same can't be said of the denver shooter. The same also can not be said of the Muslim Idi Amin who is considered a brutal dictator and NOT a terrorist. Its really simple, if one did not have too much victim hood complex.

The issue we face in India is not to do with definition of terrorism, but with police operating in the old colonial ways and resorting to old fashion investigation techniques. And that affects every common man, not just Muslims.

 

[shivajithesavior]

I think its because of the quantity , more terrorist attacks are carried by people who call themselves muslims or saviors of islam than any other organization or group.


Its like a symbol being attached to muslims over a period of time which they have to themselves remove by their own good works .

 

[Vinod2070]

Primarily it has to do with the motivation behind the atrocities.

If the motivation is religious and there is a pattern, it is foolish to pretend otherwise.

 

[cyphercide]

The tag 'terrorist' actually works for the benefit of the Muslims as it creates a definitive line of separation between common Muslims and the fundamentalists. Imagine the persecution that an average Black feels,or experienced throughout history,as they are all clubbed into the same category when it comes to discussing social ills like gang violence or crime rates in the United States.

And this was/is the treatment dished out to a community that actually had a big hand in building up the United States !!!

 

[SamranAli]

answer is in title itself, the are non muslims.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

This seems to be a classic case of people being quick to judge & slow to forget. Ever since the terrorist attacks took place against the USA on 9/11, the word terrorist has kind off become synonymous with "Muslim extremist". People assume that any individual causing terror or mayhem is likely to be a Muslim because of this unfortunate stereotype. It's wrong to stereotype a religion with over a billion followers, many of whom are, believe it or not; entirely peaceful. As for the media; they give a lot of importance to ratings, views, & entertaining their audience. These days, the media is likely to gain a greater audience presenting some "Muslim" terrorist in comparison to a "Christian" terrorist. All of this is a result of this unfortunate stereotype, every Muslim under the sun has been branded with.

Have people here heard of social responsibility & brand reputation? These terms may be applied to religious or ethnic communities as well. How do people build a good image for themselves? They do so by presenting themselves in an amiable manner. Early Arab Muslims would present themselves in a reputable manner, this impressed others to either convert to Islam or at the very least admire those ancient Muslims. I am sorry to say this, but modern Muslims have failed to present themselves in an amiable & reputable manner. Some stupid Muslim communities abroad caused trouble in Western societies resulting in the alarming rise of Islamophobia. Keep in mind that I am talking about the Muslims that demand a change in flags or the implementation of the "Sharia" law in what are primarily non-Muslim states.

I agree with the article regarding the hypocrisy & double standards when it comes to mourning the loss of innocents. Innocent Pakistanis that die at the hands of drone strikes & suicide bombings are just as innocent as the men, women, & children that die in the West. Both groups had the rest of their lives ahead of them, & both groups had their lives brought to a halt. The fact is that "terror" is defined as intense fear. The source or cause of this fear would be the acts of a "terrorist", & "terrorism" would be the promotion or use of these acts to further a cause. Based on that, I guess it's safe to say that those that bomb, terrify, & kill innocents in our land are also terrorists.

 

[livingdead]

This seems to be a classic case of people being quick to judge & slow to forget. Ever since the terrorist attacks took place against the USA on 9/11, the word terrorist has kind off become synonymous with "Muslim extremist". People assume that any individual causing terror or mayhem is likely to be a Muslim because of this unfortunate stereotype. It's wrong to stereotype a religion with over a billion followers, many of whom are, believe it or not; entirely peaceful. As for the media; they give a lot of importance to ratings, views, & entertaining their audience. These days, the media is likely to gain a greater audience presenting some "Muslim" terrorist in comparison to a "Christian" terrorist. All of this is a result of this unfortunate stereotype, every Muslim under the sun has been branded with.

Have people here heard of social responsibility & brand reputation? These terms may be applied to religious or ethnic communities as well. How do people build a good image for themselves? They do so by presenting themselves in an amiable manner. Early Arab Muslims would present themselves in a reputable manner, this impressed others to either convert to Islam or at the very least admire those ancient Muslims. I am sorry to say this, but modern Muslims have failed to present themselves in an amiable & reputable manner. Some stupid Muslim communities abroad caused trouble in Western societies resulting in the alarming rise of Islamophobia. Keep in mind that I am talking about the Muslims that demand a change in flags or the implementation of the "Sharia" law in what are primarily non-Muslim states.

I agree with the article regarding the hypocrisy & double standards when it comes to mourning the loss of innocents. Innocent Pakistanis that die at the hands of drone strikes & suicide bombings are just as innocent as the men, women, & children that die in the West. Both groups had the rest of their lives ahead of them, & both groups had their lives brought to a halt. The fact is that "terror" is defined as intense fear. The source or cause of this fear would be the acts of a "terrorist", & "terrorism" would be the promotion or use of these acts to further a cause. Based on that, I guess it's safe to say that those that bomb, terrify, & kill innocents in our land are also terrorists.

Nice writeup. I would like to know what in your view can be branded as terrorist? I dont want exact definition but an workable one, with a few examples.

I agree, media and people (even muslims themselves sometimes) brand any violent acts by muslims as terrorism without knowing the motive or other details.

 

[Oldman1]

Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes of others are treated as acts carried out in some type of frustration, asks Syed Hassan Kazim

Norway is in sorrow and mourning since nearly a year because a 'maniac', 'mad man', 'rogue', 'mentally derailed' but not a 'terrorist' Anders Behring Breivik slaughtered 77 victims in Oslo, amid widespread global condemnation. The horrible massacre brought home a great reality for the European countries, that not everyone who commits massacres and killings is a Muslim.

It's not at all a surprise that immediately after that gruesome act the media the world over started to put the blame for the massacre on Muslims and Muslim organisations without giving a second thought to the fact that the one who carried out that act could be a Christian too. That particular act by Brevik started a debate about the nature of tolerance and freedom in Norway. Many media outlets across the globe, who are biased against everything Muslim, started to flash the news that, 'Muslim terrorists have slaughtered innocent Norwegian civilians' or 'Islamic terrorism reaches Norway'.

A couple of days back the same thing happened in America's Denver, Colorado, when a 'mad man', a 'mentally derailed' person but not a 'terrorist', James Holmes, attacked a cinema in Aurora town, and killed 12 innocent people while injuring 57 others during the the screening of the movie Dark Knight [ Images ] Rises. Holmes, who killed innocents, was for a while regarded as a terror suspect by a few media channels that never miss a chance to blame Muslims after all terror attacks. They changed their tone only after it was known that he was not a Muslim.

Our hearts must go out for the victims who are killed in such brutal attacks no matter if they are Americans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans or Palestinians. But the way each and every terror attack no matter by whom, is branded as an act of Islamic terror is something which we must condemn. No one has the right to demonise a whole community just because of the act of a few maniacs who happen to be Muslims.

Despite knowing the fact that most Muslims around the world are peace-loving, government agencies and the media around the world left no stone unturned to demonise the whole community as some sort of a terrorist community or as one sympathetic towards the ones who carry out terror acts.

The question is: would the response of the world media have been the same if the perpetrators of the massacres in Oslo and Colarado had been Muslims? The answer is 'no'. Many theories would have been propped up with the help of the government agencies and biased media to prove that the killers were having some affiliation to groups like the Al Qaeda [ Images ], Hizb-ut Tahrir and the many forms of Lashkar.

We must find out why such biases exist. Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes by others are treated as acts carried out in frustration and desperation? Why is an American soldier who goes berserk and kills innocent Afghan women, children and old men called a rogue soldier while the same act done by an Afghan Muslim would have been easily regarded as an act of 'Islamic terrorism'.

In a condolence message after the Colarado massacre, US President Barack Obama [ Images ] said , 'The people we lost in Aurora loved and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbours. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled'. Does it mean that the people whose lives were (and continue to be) horrifically cut short by US drones and NATO bombs based on the decisions of Obama were, of course, none of the above? They, of course, did not deserve to have hopes for the future.

Does the Nobel laureate American president think that the victims of the American bombing expeditions deserve drones and cluster bombs? It's high time America understands the fact that terrorism cannot be fought selectively. It's not only the Muslims who are terrorists but if an American soldier runs amok in the bad lands of Iraq and Afghanistan, he must also be treated at par with an Al Qaeda or Taliban [ Images ] terror suspect.

America must know and learn how to mourn 'others' who are killed by its drones on a daily basis. This indifference towards the 'others' from the Third World is one of the main reasons behind such anger towards America and its policies. May the departed souls in Colarado, Oslo, Afghanistan and Iraq rest in peace and may America learn and start to respect the 'others'.

But it's not only America but Indians and our government which is busy witch-hunting Muslim youth on false grounds, who must also learn the above lesson.

Syed Hassan Kazim is from the Nelson Mandela [ Images ] Centre for Peace and Conflict, Jamia Millia Islamia
Syed Hassan Kazim

Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'? - Rediff.com India News

Cause hes crazy and has no political affiliations. Its that simple. Not because he's not Musliim.

 

[KRAIT]

This is the power of media. Anything can be changed by selective and targeted journalism.

Even if the culprit is not Muslim, they find something in relation with anything Muslim.

You have to money and resources, make your media strong, may be you can change the minds of rest of the world.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes of others are treated as acts carried out in some type of frustration, asks Syed Hassan Kazim

Norway is in sorrow and mourning since nearly a year because a 'maniac', 'mad man', 'rogue', 'mentally derailed' but not a 'terrorist' Anders Behring Breivik slaughtered 77 victims in Oslo, amid widespread global condemnation. The horrible massacre brought home a great reality for the European countries, that not everyone who commits massacres and killings is a Muslim.

It's not at all a surprise that immediately after that gruesome act the media the world over started to put the blame for the massacre on Muslims and Muslim organisations without giving a second thought to the fact that the one who carried out that act could be a Christian too. That particular act by Brevik started a debate about the nature of tolerance and freedom in Norway. Many media outlets across the globe, who are biased against everything Muslim, started to flash the news that, 'Muslim terrorists have slaughtered innocent Norwegian civilians' or 'Islamic terrorism reaches Norway'.

A couple of days back the same thing happened in America's Denver, Colorado, when a 'mad man', a 'mentally derailed' person but not a 'terrorist', James Holmes, attacked a cinema in Aurora town, and killed 12 innocent people while injuring 57 others during the the screening of the movie Dark Knight [ Images ] Rises. Holmes, who killed innocents, was for a while regarded as a terror suspect by a few media channels that never miss a chance to blame Muslims after all terror attacks. They changed their tone only after it was known that he was not a Muslim.

Our hearts must go out for the victims who are killed in such brutal attacks no matter if they are Americans, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghans or Palestinians. But the way each and every terror attack no matter by whom, is branded as an act of Islamic terror is something which we must condemn. No one has the right to demonise a whole community just because of the act of a few maniacs who happen to be Muslims.

Despite knowing the fact that most Muslims around the world are peace-loving, government agencies and the media around the world left no stone unturned to demonise the whole community as some sort of a terrorist community or as one sympathetic towards the ones who carry out terror acts.

The question is: would the response of the world media have been the same if the perpetrators of the massacres in Oslo and Colarado had been Muslims? The answer is 'no'. Many theories would have been propped up with the help of the government agencies and biased media to prove that the killers were having some affiliation to groups like the Al Qaeda [ Images ], Hizb-ut Tahrir and the many forms of Lashkar.

We must find out why such biases exist. Why are crimes by Muslims regarded as some sort of terror acts while the crimes by others are treated as acts carried out in frustration and desperation? Why is an American soldier who goes berserk and kills innocent Afghan women, children and old men called a rogue soldier while the same act done by an Afghan Muslim would have been easily regarded as an act of 'Islamic terrorism'.

In a condolence message after the Colarado massacre, US President Barack Obama [ Images ] said , 'The people we lost in Aurora loved and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbours. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled'. Does it mean that the people whose lives were (and continue to be) horrifically cut short by US drones and NATO bombs based on the decisions of Obama were, of course, none of the above? They, of course, did not deserve to have hopes for the future.

Does the Nobel laureate American president think that the victims of the American bombing expeditions deserve drones and cluster bombs? It's high time America understands the fact that terrorism cannot be fought selectively. It's not only the Muslims who are terrorists but if an American soldier runs amok in the bad lands of Iraq and Afghanistan, he must also be treated at par with an Al Qaeda or Taliban [ Images ] terror suspect.

America must know and learn how to mourn 'others' who are killed by its drones on a daily basis. This indifference towards the 'others' from the Third World is one of the main reasons behind such anger towards America and its policies. May the departed souls in Colarado, Oslo, Afghanistan and Iraq rest in peace and may America learn and start to respect the 'others'.

But it's not only America but Indians and our government which is busy witch-hunting Muslim youth on false grounds, who must also learn the above lesson.

Syed Hassan Kazim is from the Nelson Mandela [ Images ] Centre for Peace and Conflict, Jamia Millia Islamia
Syed Hassan Kazim

Why is a non-Muslim mass murderer not a 'terrorist'? - Rediff.com India News

The last time i read, that Norway killer was mentioned as a "terrorist"!!!

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Nice writeup. I would like to know what in your view can be branded as terrorist? I dont want exact definition but an workable one, with a few examples.

I agree, media and people (even muslims themselves sometimes) brand any violent acts by muslims as terrorism without knowing the motive or other details.

Alright, so I previously defined terror as "intense fear". Thus, the source or cause of this fear would be the acts of a "terrorist", & "terrorism" would be the promotion or use of these acts to further a cause. By using this definition it's clear that dumb groups like Al-Qaeda are nothing but terrorists. Their ideology is one that represents nothing but hatred, & their violent acts involving the brutal killings of innocents makes them terrorists.

Lets move on to the case of Anders Behring Breivik. This guy hates multiculturalism & doesn't want his country to loose its heritage & culture. Is there something wrong with hating multiculturalism? Nope, I don't see anything wrong that, but the means he used to further his ideology made him a terrorist. In this scenario, killing innocent people to further his cause was nothing but terrorism.

So it's clear, that different people may be branded as terrorists based on either their values or their actions. I know I couldn't go in to a lot of details, but I am certain what I wrote so far should be enough of an explanation for now.

 

[cyphercide]

This is the power of media. Anything can be changed by selective and targeted journalism.

Even if the culprit is not Muslim, they find something in relation with anything Muslim.

You have to money and resources, make your media strong, may be you can change the minds of rest of the world.

And what exactly has been distorted by the media ? Is there not Islamic extremism(so much so that even Islamic nations aren't spared from it) as fairly portrayed, baying for the blood of innocents and treating everyone as fair game?

Being a Jew is good enough

Being an American is good enough

Being an Indian is good enough


The entire subject is bogus as it presumes that the title 'Muslim kills x number of people' is a better substitute for 'terrorist kills x number of people'. Repeated identification usually leads to organized and systematic targeting and retaliation(not saying it's fair or constitutional) as you can observe with the Blacks and the Jews.

 

[livingdead]

Alright, so I previously defined terror as "intense fear". Thus, the source or cause of this fear would be the acts of a "terrorist", & "terrorism" would be the promotion or use of these acts to further a cause. By using this definition it's clear that dumb groups like Al-Qaeda are nothing but terrorists. Their ideology is one that represents nothing but hatred, & their violent acts involving the brutal killings of innocents makes them terrorists.

Lets move on to the case of Anders Behring Breivik. This guy hates multiculturalism & doesn't want his country to loose its heritage & culture. Is there something wrong with hating multiculturalism? Nope, I don't see anything wrong that, but the means he used to further his ideology made him a terrorist. In this scenario, killing innocent people to further his cause was nothing but terrorism.

So it's clear, that different people may be branded as terrorists based on either their values or their actions. I know I couldn't go in to a lot of details, but I am certain what I wrote so far should be enough of an explanation for now.

Thanks for the clarity about your view. Lets see few more examples.
1: A christian teacher's hand was chopped off by a muslim due to his allegedly blasphemous remark againt mohammed. Is it an act of terrorism? Will killing him be an act of terrorism?

2 : Everyday you can see on news few people dead in mexico. Drug lords/mafias kill each other as well as govt forces. Are these acts of terrorism?