Gunman (terrorist?) kills 8 in Czech town

[LeChuck]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-west-town-homicide-20150210-story.html

A grandfather was murdered a few weeks ago in Chicago and yet there is no thread on here. It's sickening how the pro Czech Republic media treats cases differently just because of the nationality/religion of the victims. Only 7 more people were killed yet there are 38 more posts about this. It's really sad how no one pays attention to murders unless they happen in the Czech Republic. It really shows the double standards of the media.

This is a rather obtuse point of view to take. We both know the differences here.

 

[Eboue]

Not really. I really wish you'd stop trying to intentionally misconstrue what I say. I commented on its relevance, and its validity to the discussion at hand, further noting it touched on some of my earlier points.

You literally quoted him and said his post "further drills down on what I was getting at." Then you went on to echo his points about the western media.

And now here you are complaining at the inference that you applauded his post. Do you have split personalities?

 

[Rado_N]

I'm quite surprised Eboue is actually having to explain the differences in these things. It's pretty straightforward stuff, really.

 

[LeChuck]

You literally quoted him and said his post "further drills down on what I was getting at." Then you went on to echo his points about the western media.

And now here you are complaining at the inference that you applauded his post. Do you have split personalities?

I quoted both Amar and Nobby.

Amar made an excellent point on people being driven by media agenda.
Nobby also made an excellent point inferring how the term terrorist is relative.

To both of these points, I mentioned how they were erudite, and pertinent, and touched upon what I had said/inferred at the start of the thread.

I'm not really in the habit of bolding specific parts of posts, or being able to cut parts out. It's quite tedious having to do that when typing from a phone.

 

[Eboue]

I quoted both Amar and Nobby.

Amar made an excellent point on people being driven by media agenda.
Nobby also made an excellent point inferring how the term terrorist is relative.

To both of these points, I mentioned how they were erudite, and pertinent, and touched upon what I had said/inferred at the start of the thread.

I'm not really in the habit of bolding specific parts of posts, or being able to cut parts out. It's quite tedious having to do that when typing from a phone.

I quoted both Amar and Nobby.

Amar made an excellent point on people being driven by media agenda.
Nobby also made an excellent point inferring how the term terrorist is relative.

To both of these points, I mentioned how they were erudite, and pertinent, and touched upon what I had said/inferred at the start of the thread.

I'm not really in the habit of bolding specific parts of posts, or being able to cut parts out. It's quite tedious having to do that when typing from a phone.

He didn't make an excellent point at all. He made a farcical one. Speaking of tedious, it's tedious explaining the same points over and over while you claim to be misquoted any time someone challenges your opinion. It's clear that you are just searching for anything even vaguely related so you can complain about the anti Muslim media.

So let's do this now instead of another few threads popping up. Tell me why I'm wrong. Explain why each situation should have gotten the same media coverage.

 

[LeChuck]

He didn't make an excellent point at all. He made a farcical one. Speaking of tedious, it's tedious explaining the same points over and over while you claim to be misquoted any time someone challenges your opinion. It's clear that you are just searching for anything even vaguely related so you can complain about the anti Muslim media.

So let's do this now instead of another few threads popping up. Tell me why I'm wrong. Explain why each situation should have gotten the same media coverage.

It's clear you have an agenda against me.

Firstly, you spent time making a post about Incident 1 and 2, and then decided to quote me instead of Amar. That was your first mistake.

Then when I mentioned I haven't referred to CH at all, you cling to any semblance of an agreement in one of my posts, completely ignoring the fact that there was a whole second post quoted in my agreement, and completely ignoring any of my previous posts on the matter.

Your whole behaviour in this thread ('drumming up outrage', 'applaud') just shows you're interested in trying to misrepresent most things I've said, probably to front some infantile one-up ship against me. I don't really have a problem with that, I think it's quite endearing, personally, but it just means you and I will go round in circles. I ignore most of the other digs (split personality).

I'm happy to have my opinion challenged, and some posters do for sound reason (2Cents, Mockney spring to mind), but not to just fuel some petty online feud you may have with me. If anything, I've noticed on the board that you yourself rarely back up anything you say in some other threads, when questioned on it. I don't have a problem with this, I just find it hypocritical that you would accuse others of the same thing.

 

[Amar__]

What are you saying, because people didn't post Rip and sad smiley faces that they don't care?

Well, they obviously don't care as they did(or pretended they do) for Charlie Hebdo victims. Do you really think this wouldn't be far bigger news if these people in restaurant were killed by some Jihadists, member of ISIS, or someone similar to those?

 

[Eboue]

Well, they obviously don't care as they did(or pretended they do) for Charlie Hebdo victims. Do you really think this wouldn't be far bigger news if these people in restaurant were killed by some Jihadists, member of ISIS, or someone similar to those?

Read my post on the differences in the scenarios and explain to me why there should have been equal coverage.

 

[Eboue]

It's clear you have an agenda against me.

Firstly, you spent time making a post about Incident 1 and 2, and then decided to quote me instead of Amar. That was your first mistake.

Then when I mentioned I haven't referred to CH at all, you cling to any semblance of an agreement in one of my posts, completely ignoring the fact that there was a whole second post quoted in my agreement, and completely ignoring any of my previous posts on the matter.

Your whole behaviour in this thread ('drumming up outrage', 'applaud') just shows you're interested in trying to misrepresent most things I've said, probably to front some infantile one-up ship against me. I don't really have a problem with that, I think it's quite endearing, personally, but it just means you and I will go round in circles. I ignore most of the other digs (split personality).

I'm happy to have my opinion challenged, and some posters do for sound reason (2Cents, Mockney spring to mind), but not to just fuel some petty online feud you may have with me. If anything, I've noticed on the board that you yourself rarely back up anything you say in some other threads, when questioned on it. I don't have a problem with this, I just find it hypocritical that you would accuse others of the same thing.

More evasion, this is pathetic. You start a thread to serve as a pity party and when someone challenges you on your assertions you start whining.

I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your debating style. Mainly that you don't actually try to debate.

Answer these questions:

1. Why do you think this incident should have received the same coverage as the Charlie hebdo murders?
2. Why do you think there are "double standards in reporting here"?
3. What part of amar's post "further drills down what [you] were getting at"?

Let's make this perfectly clear so you can't complain about being misquoted.

 

[LeChuck]

More evasion, this is pathetic. You start a thread to serve as a pity party and when someone challenges you on your assertions you start whining.

Nope-I started the thread as I thought it was pretty big, but sad news.

I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your debating style. Mainly that you don't actually try to debate.

Again, I've debated at length in many different threads, even Man Utd ones. You seem to want to propagate a view of me that is wholly wrong.

Answer these questions:

1. Why do you think this incident should have received the same coverage as the Charlie hebdo murders?
2. Why do you think there are "double standards in reporting here"?
3. What part of amar's post "further drills down what [you] were getting at"?

Let's make this perfectly clear so you can't complain about being misquoted.

1. I don't. Again, I haven't made a reference to CH in any of my posts in this thread.

2. As mentioned in my earlier posts...Specifically-the terminology used. Conversely, the terminology not used. I would like to see some consistency in the reporting. The incident here seems to be a crazed man killing people. The Sydney shooting was also a crazed man killing people. Both are wrong, but the narrative spun is different. I see in one of your earlier posts that you agree that there is a double standard when it comes to reporting.

As Nobby alluded to in his posts-when does an act of violence become an act of terrorism? Who defines this explanation? To me, it seems that an act of terrorism can only be committed by a Muslim. One just needs to watch what kind of nonsense Fox news are spouting (Birmingham, and the integrity of their presenters) to realise that there is an agenda out there, and you'd have to be either extremely blinkered or American to miss it. I don't need to mention Chapel Hill as that has been discussed at length.

I'll give you another example.

Earlier this week, 3 teenage girls have decided to leave the UK and join ISIS. Their names, faces, school attended, age, amongst other details have been shown round the clock and on every front page in the last few days.

Around 2-3 weeks ago, a UK soldier left his post in to join the Kurdish fighters in the fight against ISIS. 2 other UK men and a Canadian have done the same thing. There has been no media coverage, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

I'll give you another example.

When you have journalists like Cathy Newman, who tries to paint a negative picture to fit a narrative of how she was treated, with no facts, and was then caught out on CCTV, you begin to view the media in the same way I do.

I'll give you another example.

A Freidrich Ebert Foundation poll-45% of Britons have said there are too many Muslims in Britain, although they constitute less than 4% of the population. This is a precursor to a lot of Islamophobic sentiment seen publicly, and it is not met with a similar condemnation of anti-Semitic views. An Ipsos Mory poll carried out in France showed that the French population thought that Muslims make up 31% of France's makeup. The reality is closer to 3%. My point here is, the media, purposely sensationalises the 'Immigrant Crisis', which paints a specific picture for the average consumer.

Another example.

Boko Haram massacred 2,000 from a village. Tragic, widely reported and criticised.

The Muslims in Bangui, the Central African Republic, last summer were given an ultimatum. Either leave, or die. Ban Ki-Moon himself has mentioned what's occurred there is ethno-religious cleansing. I'd bet (if I was a betting man), that probably 70%+ of the users on this board would have no idea of this story, but they will all have heard of Boko Haram. The death count stood at around 1300 by autumn last year.

There are more examples I could post (Gaza, Rohingya, Sri Lanka, the Somali boy in America), but I hope you get my drift.

I know some of the examples aren't wholly relevant to this incident specifically, but I just wanted to elucidate the notion that the media is biased.

3. 'people being driven by media agenda'
The good thing about being a part of the Caf, is that we can see what people think and why they think it, based on what news outlets say. The group (mob?) mentality is perfectly displayed right here.

Don’t reply to this text just yet as I’m going to post it now and edit it as I’m having issues with the text in the box where I type it up.

@Eboue I have finished my edits, so feel free to reply whenever you have the chance. And I hope this dispels the notion that I don't like debating.

 

[Eboue]

Don’t reply to this text just yet as I’m going to post it now and edit it as I’m having issues with the text in the box where I type it up.

I will reply this evening from a laptop then.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Terrorism requires that the person or group committing the act are doing so as part of a larger agenda or goal, with the act having the intent of specifically creating fear in a particular community of like individuals in hopes that this fear will influence said community's behaviour in the future.

So a distressed person committing an act of violence as vengeance for some perceived wrong usually won't fit the definition of terrorism, likely because of the specific and narrow nature of their goal.

Likewise, agents acting on behalf of a recognized nation or government who are committing violence would more likely be considered to have committed an act of war rather than terror. A government may deny that some agents were indeed working on their behalf but this is usually just an obvious bluff to ensure they get their way as the other country will not likely declare war in retaliation.

Agents acting on behalf of unrecognized governments, nations or non-governmental groups will be considered terrorists because they meet the criteria outlined in paragraph one but do not fit the exclusions in paragraphs two and three. They may be excluded to a sub-category if the focus of their activities is criminal enterprise (i.e. drugs, human trafficking, smuggling stolen goods etc).

I think this is a fair summary. Hope it helps.

 

[kotha]

Earlier this week, 3 teenage girls have decided to leave the UK and join ISIS. Their names, faces, school attended, age, amongst other details have been shown round the clock and on every front page in the last few days.

Around 2-3 weeks ago, a UK soldier left his post in to join the Kurdish fighters in the fight against ISIS. 2 other UK men and a Canadian have done the same thing. There has been no media coverage, because it doesn't fit their narrative.

The UK soldier who abandoned his post to join the Peshmerga was reported in the press.. The article was among the Top 10 read articles in the BBC news website when I read it.. I think the fact it was two 16yr olds along with a 15yr old girl who joined ISIS made the story more popular.. Had it been a couple of boys I don't think the story would have been that popular.. Maybe the fact that the 19yr old British soldier was found and returned easily,while these girls couldn't be also played a part..

Edit: As a further example,take that Dutch or German biker gangs that joined the peshmerga.. Even that was widely reported similar to the 3 girls case.. Not many people responded positively for those bikers going there.. Because it was something different,the story went viral.. It's not like every young man from Britain who joined ISIS got a front page coverage..

 

[LeChuck]

The UK soldier who abandoned his post to join the Peshmerga was reported in the press.. The article was among the Top 10 read articles in the BBC news website when I read it.. I think the fact it was two 16yr olds along with a 15yr old girl who joined ISIS made the story more popular.. Had it been a couple of boys I don't think the story would have been that popular.. Maybe the fact that the 19yr old British soldier was found and returned easily,while these girls couldn't be also played a part..

Ok-I should have expanded on this when I initially wrote it.

There has been widespread condemnation of anyone leaving the UK to join ISIS.

I haven't yet seen any widespread condemnation of anyone leaving the UK to fight against them, especially with another outfit.

Also, the self styled jihadis who do leave the UK's shores to fight are given more press coverage than not, and often barred from coming back.

Lastly, I wasn't even aware that he has returned...do you have a link? If he's returned and allowed back in, then there's a double standard in itself.

 

[Eboue]

I haven't yet seen any widespread condemnation of anyone leaving the UK to fight against them, especially with another outfit.

Well duh.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Why would anyone be condemned for going to fight ISIS?

 

[kotha]

Ok-I should have expanded on this when I initially wrote it.

There has been widespread condemnation of anyone leaving the UK to join ISIS.

I haven't yet seen any widespread condemnation of anyone leaving the UK to fight against them, especially with another outfit.

Also, the self styled jihadis who do leave the UK's shores to fight are given more press coverage than not, and often barred from coming back.

Lastly, I wasn't even aware that he has returned...do you have a link? If he's returned and allowed back in, then there's a double standard in itself.

I actually edited my post while you were typing a reply.. Like I said there was widespread condemnation of the Biker gang when they decided to join Peshmerga.. Remember there being a discussion the caf itself and some German poster said the ones who joined did have criminal records themselves and in general were a nuisance to society.. It's not like they were hailed as heroes by all..

I read that they found him,not sure how or where they found him.. The link below says he is being returned to his unit.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ldier-base-fight-isis-return-kurdish-fighters

Maybe there is greater acceptance of the kid as Britain is involved in training Peshmerga so he isn't doing anything against England's policy..

 

[LeChuck]

Well duh.

Why would anyone be condemned for going to fight ISIS?

The soldier that left to join the Kurdish fighters believed he was fighting as a Christian crusader. The 3 girls who left believe they were fighting (more like aiding) as part of Islamic jihad. Can you not see a double standard here?

On a related note...why are people banned from leaving to fight for the Free Syrian Army? Why are they barred re-entry? The FSA have no affiliation with ISIS (this point is more relevant in 2012-2013).

 

[Nikhil]

He was an attention seeking, mentally 'not quite there' individual. The flag aspect came into the situation much later. He had no connection to ISIS or any other religious group. Some later enquiries into the incident have debated whether he can be classified as a terrorist.

Anyway, I don't want to detract from the Czech incident any further, (and I take full responsibility in doing so). I think the main theme here is society's handling of mental illnesses, and the ease of gun ownership, both of which should be addressed.

Let's refresh our memories on the Sydney terrorist. (Apologies for posting a link from the Daily Mail)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ant-row-rages-accused-murderer-free-bail.html

His wife had a history of extremist behaviour. Do you still think he did the Sydney siege because of 'mental' issues and not religious extremist reasons?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The soldier that left to join the Kurdish fighters believed he was fighting as a Christian crusader. The 3 girls who left believe they were fighting (more like aiding) as part of Islamic jihad. Can you not see a double standard here?

On a related note...why are people banned from leaving to fight for the Free Syrian Army? Why are they barred re-entry? The FSA have no affiliation with ISIS (this point is more relevant in 2012-2013).

I see some persons leaving to fight a group that would happily destroy us and some persons leaving to join said group. Nope, double standards can't apply.

Syria is embroiled in a civil war and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some laws against that after the Spanish civil war.

 

[JustAFan]

Why would anyone be condemned for going to fight ISIS?

UZZ isn't firing on all cylinders in this thread.

Now as far as the three teens getting more coverage. Yeah makes more sense that three teenage runaways would get more coverage then consenting adults.

 

[Amar__]

Read my post on the differences in the scenarios and explain to me why there should have been equal coverage.

Lot of those differences you mentioned are fair points, but also lot of differences you mentioned are there mainly because of the difference in media coverage in first place. Things like demonstration did/didn't happen because there was/wasn't enough media coverage. Media leads the people to believe what they say, it's really hard to not see that.

Now you answer question from my previous post.

 

[Eboue]

Lot of those differences you mentioned are fair points, but also lot of differences you mentioned are there mainly because of the difference in media coverage in first place. Things like demonstration did/didn't happen because there was/wasn't enough media coverage. Media leads the people to believe what they say, it's really hard to not see that.

Now you answer question from my previous post.

Of course it would be bigger news because it obviously should be bigger news. That was the point you were supposed to take from my list.

 

[peterstorey]

Terrorism requires that the person or group committing the act are doing so as part of a larger agenda or goal, with the act having the intent of specifically creating fear in a particular community of like individuals in hopes that this fear will influence said community's behaviour in the future.

So a distressed person committing an act of violence as vengeance for some perceived wrong usually won't fit the definition of terrorism, likely because of the specific and narrow nature of their goal.

Likewise, agents acting on behalf of a recognized nation or government who are committing violence would more likely be considered to have committed an act of war rather than terror. A government may deny that some agents were indeed working on their behalf but this is usually just an obvious bluff to ensure they get their way as the other country will not likely declare war in retaliation.

Agents acting on behalf of unrecognized governments, nations or non-governmental groups will be considered terrorists because they meet the criteria outlined in paragraph one but do not fit the exclusions in paragraphs two and three. They may be excluded to a sub-category if the focus of their activities is criminal enterprise (i.e. drugs, human trafficking, smuggling stolen goods etc).

I think this is a fair summary. Hope it helps.

Pretty good, I was ramping up to say some of the same stuff but that nails it.

 

[Desert Eagle]

The main point, around 10 people were killed in both cases because of lunatics, is the same. I don't see anyone giving their condolences in this thread as I remember people giving it in former.

I did and Uzz did too.

 

[Arruda]

The soldier that left to join the Kurdish fighters believed he was fighting as a Christian crusader. The 3 girls who left believe they were fighting (more like aiding) as part of Islamic jihad. Can you not see a double standard here?

Well, we would criticize his motivation, the idea of jihad or crusade are equally ridiculous for most people not taking part in them. The difference is the end result, he went to take part in a defensive war against some of the cruelest people on earth. If he went out to lash out attacks at villages of harmless Muslim citizens I don't find it likely there would be double standards. The shooting of 3 Muslims in America, and the coverage it got due to the possibility of it being hate motivated, before that was even confirmed or refuted, is a testament to that.