First of all, may all victims of the Norwegian bombings rest in peace, and may Norway keep courage against this act of terrorism.

Now to the main discussion. Shortly after the bombings, the US launched statements on how Al-Qaeda and the Muslim "terrorists" are behind this act. However, that statement was changed after the suspect was confirmed as Christian, and the New York Times changed the word "Muslim Terrorist" to "deranged Christian extremist". A Norwegian official also confirmed this by saying the bomber was not a Muslim terrorist, but rather a "mad-man".

2 points of discussion here:

1. Is accommodating the word "terrorist" with only Muslims an act of racism?
2. After the 9/11 act, should it be expected or assumed that every bombing is caused by Islamic extremists?

Sources available if needed. What are the viewpoints?

1) I wouldn't say it's racism. More stereotypical imo. People just misunderstand a lot and there is a perception in society that it's always a brown guy with a bomb. May be due to how they're portrayed in the media or something.

2) No, it shouldn't. That's like assuming it was the black guy who robbed the store. Just damn stereotypes.

Originally Posted by Salik

First of all, may all victims of the Norwegian bombings rest in peace, and may Norway keep courage against this act of terrorism.

Now to the main discussion. Shortly after the bombings, the US launched statements on how Al-Qaeda and the Muslim "terrorists" are behind this act. However, that statement was changed after the suspect was confirmed as Christian, and the New York Times changed the word "Muslim Terrorist" to "deranged Christian extremist". A Norwegian official also confirmed this by saying the bomber was not a Muslim terrorist, but rather a "mad-man".

2 points of discussion here:

1. Is accommodating the word "terrorist" with only Muslims an act of racism?
2. After the 9/11 act, should it be expected or assumed that every bombing is caused by Islamic extremists?

Sources available if needed. What are the viewpoints?

The guy who did the Oklahoma bombing wasn't labelled a terriorist yet a 'mad man' who was 'insane'. A lot of other events occurred after 9/11 which terrorized different respective people around the world but if a Muslim did it they would label them a terrorist. I know what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

hmmm, the event in itself is quite sad but the funny aspect is how quickly it disappeared off the news and off the hot discussion topics of people.

personally i think it isnt exactly racist, but very stereotypical.

Originally Posted by herBs

The guy who did the Oklahoma bombing wasn't labelled a terriorist yet a 'mad man' who was 'insane'. A lot of other events occurred after 9/11 which terrorized different respective people around the world but if a Muslim did it they would label them a terrorist. I know what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

haroon siddiqui agrees with you. (or you agree with him)

http://www.thestar.com/article/10312...ards-on-terror

I was JUST thinking about this yesterday. The bombings and killing of tens of people in Norway hasn't gotten much media attention at ALL. However, if it was a Muslim "terrorist" doing the killings, it would've been everywhere. Western media is complete and utter B.S. For years they've focused on "terrorism" and it's apparent ties to Islam just based on pretty much 9/11 and a few events here and there. They never dismiss it as just a rare event, not representative of Muslims at a whole. But on the other hand, if someone of a different religion were to commit the same act of racism/violence, they're simply labelled as "mad man" or with some for of psychological imbalance. It was clearly made that the Norwegian terrorist who carried out the bombings and killings was anti-Islam, however, that piece of information always seems to be "missing" if it's not a Muslim terrorist committing the violence

/end rant

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

I was JUST thinking about this yesterday. The bombings and killing of tens of people in Norway hasn't gotten much media attention at ALL. However, if it was a Muslim "terrorist" doing the killings, it would've been everywhere. Western media is complete and utter B.S. For years they've focused on "terrorism" and it's apparent ties to Islam just based on pretty much 9/11 and a few events here and there. They never dismiss it as just a rare event, not representative of Muslims at a whole. But on the other hand, if someone of a different religion were to commit the same act of racism/violence, they're simply labelled as "mad man" or with some for of psychological imbalance. It was clearly made that the Norwegian terrorist who carried out the bombings and killings was anti-Islam, however, that piece of information always seems to be "missing" if it's not a Muslim terrorist committing the violence

/end rant

I absolutely love it when a non-Muslim is nuetral.

Originally Posted by herBs

I absolutely love it when a non-Muslim is nuetral.

I try to be neutral.. but truth is.. I'm Muslim . This is just a topic that really annoys me. I've read a lot about it, whether it be 9/11 or other events in the past, and no matter what religion is in question, the media's influence and b.s. just blows my mind.

Well notice how this was directly after the bombings, correct? Like within a very short time frame, then when facts were presented, the articles were edited. All news stations need to publish their information as fast as possible in order to be competitive with the others. So is it politically incorrect to assume who did the bombings before any information is given? Yes, but the general trend of "terrorism" in the modern world has to do with islamic terror, does it not? I don't know the exact numbers of how many bombings in the past 10 years were done by muslim extremists, but i'm sure its a good chunk. Even if it isn't the largest percentile, the public perceives that it is. So therefore its the logical thing to write as a headline grabber. So it's not like they were completely off-base and it was an unwarranted and precarious assumption. It was the logical thing to assume when facts and information were not made available yet.

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

I try to be neutral.. but truth is.. I'm Muslim . This is just a topic that really annoys me. I've read a lot about it, whether it be 9/11 or other events in the past, and no matter what religion is in question, the media's influence and b.s. just blows my mind.

Oh cool, the 'Sara' part caught me off guard even though you have <3 Egypt <3 in your signatoor.

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

I was JUST thinking about this yesterday. The bombings and killing of tens of people in Norway hasn't gotten much media attention at ALL. However, if it was a Muslim "terrorist" doing the killings, it would've been everywhere. Western media is complete and utter B.S. For years they've focused on "terrorism" and it's apparent ties to Islam just based on pretty much 9/11 and a few events here and there. They never dismiss it as just a rare event, not representative of Muslims at a whole. But on the other hand, if someone of a different religion were to commit the same act of racism/violence, they're simply labelled as "mad man" or with some for of psychological imbalance. It was clearly made that the Norwegian terrorist who carried out the bombings and killings was anti-Islam, however, that piece of information always seems to be "missing" if it's not a Muslim terrorist committing the violence

/end rant

The absolute worst is scumbags like Billo saying "Why is he a Christian Extremist? No Christian would kill people!" Yet for the past 10 years he's been ranting that Muslim Extremists are evil and its completely incumbent on the religion!

al-qaeda tried to take credit for the bombing, telling the world that they did it and that there was "more to come"

That's why they attributed this to Islam right away until it was confirmed some nutcase did it.

Originally Posted by adaptation

Well notice how this was directly after the bombings, correct? Like within a very short time frame, then when facts were presented, the articles were edited. All news stations need to publish their information as fast as possible in order to be competitive with the others. So is it politically incorrect to assume who did the bombings before any information is given? Yes, but the general trend of "terrorism" in the modern world has to do with islamic terror, does it not? I don't know the exact numbers of how many bombings in the past 10 years were done by muslim extremists, but i'm sure its a good chunk. Even if it isn't the largest percentile, the public perceives that it is. So therefore its the logical thing to write as a headline grabber. So it's not like they were completely off-base and it was an unwarranted and precarious assumption. It was the logical thing to assume when facts and information were not made available yet.

This is exactly what bothers me. Yes, sure news stations need to have the news out RIGHT away, but they can mention it without anything politically incorrect. What happened to being innocent until proven guilty, and what does the individual's religion have to do in question? And based on following trends in the past, I don't agree with you at all. I mean, what crimes are defined as terrorism anyway? I can define a simple shooting as an act of terror, and that takes place in every country. It's the media that blows things out of proportion to grab the viewer's attention without stressing that it's merely a small group of extremists carrying out these acts, not the entire 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. And yes, it's completely unwarranted in my opinion. I wish there was some stats that said how many acts of violence were carried out by Muslim extremists versus other religions, but I know such thing doesn't exist, so how can we even assume that the person in question is simply Muslim just based on history where a lot of crimes just involve suspects who happen to be Muslim..

Originally Posted by Strategy

al-qaeda tried to take credit for the bombing, telling the world that they did it and that there was "more to come"

That's why they attributed this to Islam right away until it was confirmed some nutcase did it.

I cannot say if that is true or not because I didn't follow the Norwegian bombings really closely unfortunately..but why did the media forget that the U.S. government admitted to funding to 'Islamic Extremist Groups' such as Al-Qaeda. Wouldn't that make the U.S. government terrorists as well for aiding/funding and training such people/groups? (sorry I went on a tangent)
/rage

9/11 was huge, but not even close to as big as nagasaki and hiroshima.

which is why i love when a history teacher repeats that the nuclear bombs on japan were only a way to end the war, and not an act of terrorism by state. :p

^ a bit irrelevant i know but i had the urge to post it LOL