Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Whilst I've alluded to this in other threads, I thought I'd make the article more prominent - it is about a terrorist attack earlier this month on a Mosque.


Terror Double Standard

On the evening of May 10 [2010], there was a small explosion and fire outside a Jacksonville, FL mosque. According to a fire department investigation and officials of the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida, worshipers heard a loud noise outside the mosque, and there was a small fire that was extinguished. The damage was described as “very minimal” by a Jacksonville Fire and Rescue spokesperson. Thank God, no one was injured in the attack.

According to the Council on American Islamic Relations, mosque officials reported that an unknown white man in his 40s entered the mosque on April 4 and shouted “Stop this blaspheming.” He was chased away by worshipers, but he reportedly said, “I will be back.” Now, it has been determined that the explosion was due to a pipe bomb, and it is being investigated as a possible act of domestic terrorism. “It was a dangerous device, and had anybody been around it they could have been seriously injured or killed,” says Special Agent James Casey.

Yet, you would not be faulted for not knowing that it even occurred. Most of the news coverage has been local in Florida. There has not been nearly the same amount of coverage at the failed bombing in Times Square.

Now, of course, the size of this pipe bomb is nothing compared to the size of the truck bomb allegedly placed by Faisal Shahzad. The mosque bombing was perpetrated by one individual, and it increasingly looks like the Taliban in Pakistan were behind the attempted bombing in Times Square. Obviously, an attack on Times Square in the middle of a tourist/theater district is much more of a story than an attack on a mosque in Florida.

But just as the Times Square bomb could have really done harm, the pipe bomb could have also done a lot of harm. FBI officials noted that the blast radius could have been 100 feet. In addition, The FBI Special Agent in Florida, James Casey, had added: “We want to sort of emphasize the seriousness of the thing and not let people believe that this was just a match and a little bit of gasoline that was spread around.” The attempted attack on Times Square was rightly called an act of terrorism. But, as this news report says: “The FBI is looking at this case as a possible hate crime, and now they’re analyzing it as a possible act of domestic terrorism.”

A pipe bomb that explodes outside a mosque causing a fire a possible act of domestic terrorism? What if a pipe bomb exploded in Times Square? Or outside a church? Would this be called terrorism? Of course it would…and it should. So should this attack on the Jacksonville, FL mosque.

It must be said that this is not the only incident of an attack on a house of worship. Black churches have been attacked in this country for decades, and people have been killed. It is an ugly stain on the fabric of our nation’s history. Yet, so is this. Houses of worship are sacred spaces that must be respected, protected, and kept safe.

It is heinous wherever it occurs: whether it is a church in Baghdad, a Church in Birmingham, a synagogue in Chicago, a mosque in the West Bank, or a mosque in America. And we should also call a spade a spade: a pipe bomb outside a mosque is terrorism. But, because no Muslim is behind it, it does not get much attention. This must stop.

http://godfaithpen.com/2010/05/14/terror-double-standard/



Here's a commentary on this article:

Let us–just for argument’s sake–assume that the pipe bomb was not at all serious and not a big deal. Even if that was the case, can you imagine the ruckus if some Muslim dude did the exact same thing to a Jewish synagogue? It would get incredible coverage by the mainstream media, and terrorism experts by the dozens would be called to pontificate about the threat of Islamic radicalism.

Yes, the “Jacksonville bomber” (the media only gives such scary sounding names if it’s a Muslim) failed miserably and nobody was hurt, but did this stop national hysteria when the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber tried to light their foot and buns on fire? There is truly a disproportionate response between when a “normal” person does something and when a “Moozlem” does something.

A Muslim suspect wouldn’t even have to use the pipe bomb. A Muslim would simply have to post something on Revolution Muslim stating intent to do that, and it would be enough to create national hysteria. It is barely exaggeration to say that a Muslim would create national hysteria if he simply thought of doing that, let alone actually attempting it. A Muslim would be on front page news for simply farting in the general direction of a synagogue or church.

It's also been asked when the last suicide terrorist attack was made on US soil by nonMuslims (or more cunningly, by non-Muslim fundamentalists).

Well, this year an American committed an act of suicide terrorism by flying their plane into a Government building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html

Not a Muslim who wanted 72 virgins, but a terrorist American who was 'normal' but had a big, big grudge against the US government. Was he affected by his Sunday school classes (he stayed in a Catholic orphanage for while as a child), did he have a copy of the Bible at home? Or was Big Bird responsible for him wanting to commit suicide? Nope - everyone seems very quick to find excuses to not blame the religion he professed (rightly so) - but just look up at this thread's title!


Staying in the US, and staying in Texas - let us recall the last time a terrorist killed someone in a protest against Jews and protest against the Holocaust.

Was it a Muslim who carried out this terrorist attack and killed someone? What do you think..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum_shooting

Nope, he was an old codger who died earlier this year whilst awaiting trial

Von Brunn was a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who had previously been arrested and convicted for entering a federal building with various weapons in 1981 while trying to place the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, whom he considered to be treasonous, under citizens arrest.

Cheers,
Shafique

So, coming to the UK we can have a look at what the latest convictions have been for terrorist offences.

We see that this month (May 2010) there has been the first conviction of a Briton for the crime of producing chemical weapons.

Was it done by Muslims?

Hmm.

A white supremacist who dismissed other extreme groups as weak and gutless was jailed for 10 years today after becoming the first Briton to be convicted for producing a chemical weapon.

And what books did they use for inspiration:

They were followers of the ideology of Adolf Hitler, who they revered, and whose work Mein Kampf was among many available on their website."
...
Condemning Ian Davison's "appalling" behaviour, Judge John Milford expressed surprise that The Anarchists' Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond, whose bombmaking advice was circulated by the pair, were still available on Amazon. Possession and circulation of such material was part of the case against Nicky Davison, 19, who was convicted last month. His father earlier pleaded guilty to producing a chemical weapon, preparing acts of terrorism, three counts of possessing material useful to commit acts of terror and possessing a prohibited weapon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/1 ... cal-weapon

and

http://www.haaretz.com/news/internation ... s-1.290459
(Haaretz makes the point that these numpties also wanted to target Jews.)


Now, of course we have to address the issue of the Pakistanis who were arrested for plotting to blow up Britons last year.

The numpties are probably would-be terrorists despite their protestations they were just 'mucking around' - but

But the anti-terror officers encountered a problem - there was no bomb. And within two weeks, detectives had to throw in the towel and release all 11 men without charge.

But a year on from a PR disaster for the police, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has ruled that four of the 10 Pakistani men were committed extremists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8688586.stm
(From an article from a few days ago about how some had won an appeal against being deported)

Cheers,
Shafique

To see if your author's theory is correct, on would only need to look at the attacks against Churches and Synagogues that have occurred in the past ten years in the US, Europe and Muslim world to see if there is really a 'terror double standard'.

An article here says a man threw a pipe bomb at a church in New York. The article quotes government officials as saying charges of arson will be filed against the man in addition to illegal possession of an explosive device (the pipe bomb, just like the one used against the mosque, only started a fire), but terrorism related charges were not said to have been filed.

http://congregationalsecurityinc.com/bl ... confesses/

And this article says a pipe bomb went off in a Synagogue playground regularly used by children. The article said it was a hate crime (just like the failed pipe bombing of the mosque) but the article never said that terrorism related charges would be filed.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 87,1330641

Oh, and to be sure, neither attacks were front page headlines across the country. This is the first time I heard of either incident.

But hey, you can go through this page for listed attacks against French Jews for the first four months of 2002 to see if any of the 'firebombings' of Jewish targets are listed as acts of terrorism by the media or French and European authorities.

http://www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BDFD2AA ... ttacks.pdf

I'll also be interested to see how the Western media treated the recent attacks against churches in both Malaysia and Nigeria (just the other day, one or two churches in Nigeria were torched IIRC).

Does the Western media refer to these attacks as acts of terrorism?

Please, let us know of your findings.

Ok, I agree - let's test out the theory.

event horizon wrote:To see if your author's theory is correct, on would only need to look at the attacks against Churches and Synagogues that have occurred in the past ten years in the US, Europe and Muslim world to see if there is really a 'terror double standard'.

Sure thing - the double standards referred to is the media coverage of attacks by Muslims vs attacks by non-Muslims. It is not just about the target of the attacks - i.e. it is not the fact that a mosque was attacked, but that it was a non-Muslim who committed the terrorist attack.

This was made clear in the second post above which detailed terrorist acts against US citizens by non-Muslims this year, and the relatively muted media coverage. The suicide bombing by the Catholic, for example, was against a government building, not a mosque. The theory says that if the suicide terrorist was a Muslim, then it would be still being discussed today (a few months after the event) rather than almost completely forgotten.

Anyway, You want to look at attacks since 2000 (you say past 10 years). But why not start with the ones highlighted above in 2010. Don't the examples given above prove the 'double standard'? If not, how not?

Ok, let's look at your examples:

event horizon wrote:An article here says a man threw a pipe bomb at a church in New York.

Well, this one is in total accordance with the theory. If the terrorist was called Ahmad Saleem and not Richard Blonski, then the media would have been all over this. As it is, your quote is from 'Congregational Security News' - hardly a national paper!

I think you've made my point for me quite well. Thanks.

Next one:

event horizon wrote:And this article says a pipe bomb went off in a Synagogue playground regularly used by children.

Geez eh, this article is a clipping of a Miami newspaper from 1988 talking about a bombing in Hollywood, California. Firstly this was 22 years ago (May 6 1988), but we'll let that little fact slide. Now - I don't know what Miami's editorial policy was like in 1988, but I can't take your word for it that this stub is representative of the attack at the time. But recall that in 1988 the Russians were still the bad guys, Saddam and Taliban were our good guys and it may not be surprising to learn that 22 years ago attacks like this did not make a big splash in Miami, Florida. Perhaps they didn't want to cause too many heart attacks amongst the poor dears who retire there??

Let's see if you do better with your next one:

event horizon wrote:Oh, and to be sure, neither attacks were front page headlines across the country. This is the first time I heard of either incident.

Eh- were you even born at the time of the second attack above? Serious.

Ok, so now you want to move to Europe - fair enough, lets see:

event horizon wrote:But hey, you can go through this page for listed attacks against French Jews for the first four months of 2002 to see if any of the 'firebombings' of Jewish targets are listed as acts of terrorism by the media or French and European authorities.

http://www.kintera.org/atf/cf/%7BDFD2AA ... ttacks.pdf

Ah, the French. However, could you clarify how looking at French media coverage from eight years ago will prove/disprove the double standards theory proposed above?

event horizon wrote:I'll also be interested to see how the Western media treated the recent attacks against churches in both Malaysia and Nigeria (just the other day, one or two churches in Nigeria were torched IIRC).

Good questions - you'll have to help me out with some specific references though. We can both see how the Western Media characterises these attacks (and see whether there is any difference when it is muslims who carry out the attacks and when it isn't).

You are completely right though - we shouldn't accept any theory without examining the evidence.

This was made clear in the second post above which detailed terrorist acts against US citizens by non-Muslims this year, and the relatively muted media coverage. The suicide bombing by the Catholic, for example, was against a government building, not a mosque. The theory says that if the suicide terrorist was a Muslim, then it would be still being discussed today (a few months after the event) rather than almost completely forgotten.

Let's test that quaint belief of yours.

A few months after 9/11, a Muslim student deliberately crashed his plane into an office building and left behind a note ranting about Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan or something to that effect.

To my knowledge, that incident was not labeled a terrorist attack nor was there a lot of media coverage regarding the attack (it may have been front page headlines for a day or two, but considering the nature of the attack and the timing shortly after 9/11, that is hardly surprising).

Further, besides the fact that the student was upset over the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, I've never heard anyone link the attack to Islamic terrorism.

So, your theory clearly fails to meet its own test. The attack is not discussed to this day and has certainly almost been completely forgotten about.

Next.

Ah, the French. However, could you clarify how looking at French media coverage from eight years ago will prove/disprove the double standards theory proposed above?

Which theory? That attacks against non-Muslim houses of worship are always treated by the media as terrorist attacks or your newest theory that attacks carried out by Muslims are 'still being discussed today'.

Nope, none of those firebombings of Jewish targets in France are discussed today that I know of.

So again, we see another instance where your theory fails to hold up.

event horizon wrote:

This was made clear in the second post above which detailed terrorist acts against US citizens by non-Muslims this year, and the relatively muted media coverage. The suicide bombing by the Catholic, for example, was against a government building, not a mosque. The theory says that if the suicide terrorist was a Muslim, then it would be still being discussed today (a few months after the event) rather than almost completely forgotten.

Let's test that quaint belief of yours.

Sure, can we start with the three terrorist plots listed first though. Once we establish these as benchmarks, we can move on to the other ones.

Let's start with the contrast between the coverage between the bombing of the mosque and the Times Square bombing. What were the reasons for the difference in coverages?

Then we can examine the suicide terrorist attack from February - and see whether you agree that had it been a Muslim, it would have changed the coverage (hence the double standards).

So, care to tackle the first one. It shouldn't take long - then we'll move on to your other examples and examine whether France is different from the US, for example. It could well be - like you I'd like to examine the evidence for this theory. (And certainly let's have a look at the coverage of the Muslim who flew a plane into a building in 2001 - I have to say, you may be right here - I don't recall this incident, I hope it is not just my age! )

But let's start at the beginning and most recent terrorist acts in the US in 2010.

Cheers,

Let's start with the contrast between the coverage between the bombing of the mosque and the Times Square bombing. What were the reasons for the difference in coverages?

Why stop there? Why not include the coverage (or lack thereof) of the pipe bombing attack against the church in New York?

The suspect is apparently only being charged with illegal possession of explosives and arson.

No hate crime charges. No faith based attack charges. No domestic terrorism charges.

Then we can examine the suicide terrorist attack from February - and see whether you agree that had it been a Muslim, it would have changed the coverage (hence the double standards).

Sure, I'll be happy to compare it to the same type of attack that a Muslim teenager carried out in late 2001.

Of course the attack recently occurring after 9/11 would have given the Muslim kamikaze attack more media coverage but, regardless of the context, the attack received very little and is erased from the minds of most people.

I'm not even able to find it on google. Something about a guy crashing a plane into an Austin government building keeps on popping up instead.

Funny that.

event horizon wrote:

Let's start with the contrast between the coverage between the bombing of the mosque and the Times Square bombing. What were the reasons for the difference in coverages?

Why stop there? Why not include the coverage (or lack thereof) of the pipe bombing attack against the church in New York?

Umm - I said let's start with the most recent terrorist attacks, which also coincides with the order I posted them.

I actually want to go back to the 2001 one you referred to (seriously) - but let's just look at the ones in 2010 and then work backwards and test out this theory that Muslims committing terrorist acts gets more sensationalist coverage than when non-Muslims carry out terrorist acts.

As I said, the 2010 terrorist acts shouldn't take too long to compare coverages of - so let's start there.

Cheers,
Shafique