Originally Posted by herBs

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

Exactly. Not to forget that the CIA created the Taliban.. If only the media would show THAT.

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

Exactly. Not to forget that the CIA created the Taliban.. If only the media would cover show THAT.

I'm just waiting for it to be on WikiLeaks. >_>

Originally Posted by Salik

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

Hahaha. Someone told me that once too.. All I could do was laugh.. 'cause the argument was SO not worth it

Originally Posted by herBs

I'm just waiting for it to be on WikiLeaks. >_>

According to some, wikileaks is another creation of US just to post propaganda.

What strengthens this theory is that such strong Government information gets leaked on that website...HOW? Also, how is it that the pentagon is chasing the founders of wikileaks but haven't yet been able to grab hold of who is releasing the information on a website

Originally Posted by ~*Sara*~

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..

Well the definition of terrorism is to invoke terror for political reasons. So you can't exactly define a shooting as terrorism. And hah, you think any news outlets have a soul? They salivate at the fact that they can tie religion to something because it guarantees money, so they will always say people are guilty before they are innocent (not that they even need to abide to that since that applies to courts, not public opinion, Casey Anthony anyone?).

I don't mean to come off as harsh, i was just trying to wrap my head around the logic of news stations. But tell me this, approach 10 random people on the street and tell them there was a bomb in X city in Y country. Now ask them what religion they think that person was. That's the same logic that news stations use all the time because its what nets the most profit. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it horrible? Very.

And you are completely correct! Religion should be a non-issue in cases like this because it doesn't matter WHAT religion these nut jobs were born into, they would still kill people because they're insane. It's just too bad the general public, and the media that feeds the idiocy can't grasp that.

Originally Posted by adaptation

Well the definition of terrorism is to invoke terror for political reasons. So you can't exactly define a shooting as terrorism. And hah, you think any news outlets have a soul? They salivate at the fact that they can tie religion to something because it guarantees money, so they will always say people are guilty before they are innocent (not that they even need to abide to that since that applies to courts, not public opinion, Casey Anthony anyone?).

I don't mean to come off as harsh, i was just trying to wrap my head around the logic of news stations. But tell me this, approach 10 random people on the street and tell them there was a bomb in X city in Y country. Now ask them what religion they think that person was. That's the same logic that news stations use all the time because its what nets the most profit. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it horrible? Very.

And you are completely correct! Religion should be a non-issue in cases like this because it doesn't matter WHAT religion these nut jobs were born into, they would still kill people because they're insane. It's just too bad the general public, and the media that feeds the idiocy can't grasp that.

What I'm trying to say is, a lot of crimes can fall under the category of "terrorism," yet the media restricts the definition in their own way and for their own benefit to apply to certain crimes only. And that'e the meaning people define terrorism with today. Not a soul per se, but at the very least, they should report the facts as they are, not alter it as they wish to gain more viewers and increase interest in their subject matter.

Oh no, not harsh at all. It just sickens me that the only ties of communication we have with the outside world are biased and not as truthful as we'd like to think. Ugh, don't get me started on the Casey Anthony thing. I understand the economic aspects of news stations, but where is the ethical side? And even worse, where's the common sense and logic of people dependent on these news stations for their information. The level of ignorance in the world is just absolutely insane.

It's funny because when I watch Middle Eastern news stations and compare them with say, CNN, BBC, etc. They're VERY different. Oddly enough, the former have improved greatly over the past few months.

Originally Posted by Salik

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.

What would you say the difference is between being racist and stereotypical. Want to know where you're coming from since for me they're just 2 shades of the same colour.

Originally Posted by herBs

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

Instead of reading her name 'seh-rah', read it 'saa-raa' and let the "ahh that makes sense" factor settle in :p

Originally Posted by camais

Instead of reading her name 'seh-rah', read it 'saa-raa' and let the "ahh that makes sense" factor settle in :p

Hahaha, exactly that :p.

99.6% of terrorist attacks in the last 3 years in Europe were committed by people who were NOT "Islamists".

http://i.imgur.com/rRqzm.png

the image has "number of foiled, failed, or successful attacks in [2008, 2009, 2010 -respectively] per member state and per affiliation" in the EU

Got this from the Europol website (EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report) at "https://www.europol.europa.eu /latest_publications/2".
There are reports from previous years, worth a look, but I thought this would be enough. I know that data from Norway aren't included, but there's little reason to believe that the stats in Norway are radically different from those in these reports.

The NYT has no grounds for presuming that a Muslim was behind these attacks. It's just more lazy, damaging, unsubstantiated journalism.

Originally Posted by waldo92

99.6% of terrorist attacks in the last 3 years in Europe were committed by people who were NOT "Islamists".

http://i.imgur.com/rRqzm.png

the image has "number of foiled, failed, or successful attacks in [2008, 2009, 2010 -respectively] per member state and per affiliation" in the EU

Got this from the Europol website (EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report) at "https://www.europol.europa.eu /latest_publications/2".
There are reports from previous years, worth a look, but I thought this would be enough. I know that data from Norway aren't included, but there's little reason to believe that the stats in Norway are radically different from those in these reports.

The NYT has no grounds for presuming that a Muslim was behind these attacks. It's just more lazy, damaging, unsubstantiated journalism.

Oh wow, I've never heard of this. Thanks!

Originally Posted by waldo92

99.6% of terrorist attacks in the last 3 years in Europe were committed by people who were NOT "Islamists".

http://i.imgur.com/rRqzm.png

the image has "number of foiled, failed, or successful attacks in [2008, 2009, 2010 -respectively] per member state and per affiliation" in the EU

Got this from the Europol website (EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report) at "https://www.europol.europa.eu /latest_publications/2".
There are reports from previous years, worth a look, but I thought this would be enough. I know that data from Norway aren't included, but there's little reason to believe that the stats in Norway are radically different from those in these reports.

The NYT has no grounds for presuming that a Muslim was behind these attacks. It's just more lazy, damaging, unsubstantiated journalism.

Wow, this is crazy. I did not even know France had separatist factions, much less that they committed over 200 acts of terrorism. How come the news never reported this?

Why do most ppl hate on islam LEAVE ISLAM ALONE *chriscrocker reference*

No but for real, ALOT of ppl in the world are just out to make muslims look bad ??

Religion is like a goose that lays gold-painted pieces of crap and every so often some of the paint comes off.

Originally Posted by waldo92

99.6% of terrorist attacks in the last 3 years in Europe were committed by people who were NOT "Islamists".

http://i.imgur.com/rRqzm.png

the image has "number of foiled, failed, or successful attacks in [2008, 2009, 2010 -respectively] per member state and per affiliation" in the EU

Got this from the Europol website (EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report) at "https://www.europol.europa.eu /latest_publications/2".
There are reports from previous years, worth a look, but I thought this would be enough. I know that data from Norway aren't included, but there's little reason to believe that the stats in Norway are radically different from those in these reports.

The NYT has no grounds for presuming that a Muslim was behind these attacks. It's just more lazy, damaging, unsubstantiated journalism.

You know what the absolutely horrible thing about that is? Part of me doesn't believe that statistic even though its backed up by sources purely because of media brain washing.

I feel dirty

Originally Posted by ShouldBeStudying

Religion is like a goose that lays gold-painted pieces of crap and every so often some of the paint comes off.

and what is the relevance of your dislike of religion to this discussion?