In The News

[SM]

Islamist is simply a term to describe extremist Muslims.

So why not call them the latter only?

English is a living language, and words take on meanings through frequent usage.  Islamist has come to mean 'extremist Muslim'.

[ShadowPred]

I know it's a bit strange but considering all the police and gunfire during the boston manhunt... aside from a few innocent people being detained I don't think the authorities harmed a single innocent person. I'm must say that I'm pretty impressed.

Spoiler

[close]

LAPD needs to take notes!

[Ratchetcomand]

Well that's how the media works unfortunately.

I hate when that happens. It seems like most Americans don't give a shit what happens outside the US. That's why you had people posting stuff on twitter like "This paypack for Pearl Harbor bitches!!" during the Japanese earthquake from two years ago  . I know the bombing that happen in Boston was pretty tragic, but I do feel like this earthquake was worst. I don't want to see 1000 people who got hurt and 150 people that got killed to be ignore.

[maledoro]

The earthquake from two years ago didn't happen in America neither. I don't like it other tragic news gets overshadow. Those people in china lost over 100 people and thousands of people were hurt.

Well that's how the media works unfortunately.

How exactly does it work? It's human nature you're looking for, not the media. People are more interested in things that relate to them over things that concern others, no matter the intensity.

[DoomRulz]

Islamist is simply a term to describe extremist Muslims.

So why not call them the latter only?

Because "Muslim" has become a very loaded word that both Islamists (aka Islamic Fundamentalists, or whatever you want to call them) and Islamophobes want to claim and use for their own ideological purposes. By not using the word "Muslim" at all when you talk about these terrorists you move the focus from Muslims in general to the fundamentalist fanatics instead, whom deserve all the bad rep they can get.

Fair enough.

[maledoro]

And, don't forget that the Islamists drink from the same well as the Good Muslims, just like the Xtian Fundies drink from the same well as the Kumbaya Xtians.

[DoomRulz]

The earthquake from two years ago didn't happen in America neither. I don't like it other tragic news gets overshadow. Those people in china lost over 100 people and thousands of people were hurt.

Well that's how the media works unfortunately.

How exactly does it work? It's human nature you're looking for, not the media. People are more interested in things that relate to them over things that concern others, no matter the intensity.

Perhaps, but there is severe manipulation in terms of what is given media attention. A bomb went off in Afghanistan I think it was the same day as the Boston bombings which killed several people but that was cast aside in favour of "AAAAHHHH AMERICA IN TROUBLE!!!!"

[maledoro]

The earthquake from two years ago didn't happen in America neither. I don't like it other tragic news gets overshadow. Those people in china lost over 100 people and thousands of people were hurt.

Well that's how the media works unfortunately.

How exactly does it work? It's human nature you're looking for, not the media. People are more interested in things that relate to them over things that concern others, no matter the intensity.

Perhaps, but there is severe manipulation in terms of what is given media attention. A bomb went off in Afghanistan I think it was the same day as the Boston bombings which killed several people but that was cast aside in favour of "AAAAHHHH AMERICA IN TROUBLE!!!!"

Again, what will interest the local gentry? Afghanis: bomb in Afghanistan. Americans: bomb in Boston. Methinks a bomb in Toronto would better grab your attention than one in Kabul.

[DoomRulz]

It's the way it's presented though. Why are both events not given equal attention? Here in Toronto, the Boston bomb was all anyone spoke about even though it happened in, lo and behold, another country, so your argument falls flat.

[maledoro]

It's the way it's presented though. Why are both events not given equal attention? Here in Toronto, the Boston bomb was all anyone spoke about even though it happened in, lo and behold, another country, so your argument falls flat.

If you're going to frame an argument, don't do it half-assed.


Let's play a game called "Let's Suppose". Let's Suppose that there was a bomb in Toronto and in Kabul, which do you think would get the most attention in your country?

[DoomRulz]

In my country, yes, obviously the Toronto would rightly deserve more coverage.

But.

The Boston bombs happened in the U.S., just like the bomb in Afghanistan went off in, well, Afghanistan. Both are foreign countries, yet the American incident receives more attention. Why?

[maledoro]

In my country, yes, obviously the Toronto would rightly deserve more coverage.

But.

The Boston bombs happened in the U.S., just like the bomb in Afghanistan went off in, well, Afghanistan. Both are foreign countries, yet the American incident receives more attention. Why?

The US isn't foreign. You are.


Seriously, Boston is closer to Toronto geographically and culturally than Aghanistan is. I'm willing to bet that the Afghanis were hearing more about their blast than the one in Boston. I have nothing to back that up, but I gotta go with one of those "hunch" things.

[DoomRulz]

In my country, yes, obviously the Toronto would rightly deserve more coverage.

But.

The Boston bombs happened in the U.S., just like the bomb in Afghanistan went off in, well, Afghanistan. Both are foreign countries, yet the American incident receives more attention. Why?

The US isn't foreign. You are.


Seriously, Boston is closer to Toronto geographically and culturally than Aghanistan is. I'm willing to bet that the Afghanis were hearing more about their blast than the one in Boston. I have nothing to back that up, but I gotta go with one of those "hunch" things.

I'm not sure what point you're making here is. Of course a bombing in Toronto would receive more attention in my city just as a bomb in Kabul would receive more attention in Afghanistan.

My question is, as living in a country that isn't called either The United States of America or Afghanistan, what gives the American incident more precedence over the Afghani one which was more violent? Is the implication, "It happened close to home, ergo, it could happen here too"?

[maledoro]

Seriously, Boston is closer to Toronto geographically and culturally than Aghanistan is. I'm willing to bet that the Afghanis were hearing more about their blast than the one in Boston. I have nothing to back that up, but I gotta go with one of those "hunch" things.

I'm not sure what point you're making here is. Of course a bombing in Toronto would receive more attention in my city just as a bomb in Kabul would receive more attention in Afghanistan.[/quote]I didn't mention a bomb in Toronto that time. I was talking about one in Boston versus one in Kabul.

My question is, as living in a country that isn't called either The United States of America or Afghanistan, what gives the American incident more precedence over the Afghani one which was more violent? Is the implication, "It happened close to home, ergo, it could happen here too"?

The "It Could Happen Here, Too" element isn't relevant in this discussion. Overall, Canadians are going to have more in common with people from the US than elsewhere. Plus, bombs are more commonplace in Afghanistan than in the US. If a bomb doesn't go off in downtown Kabul, that might make headlines.

[scm]

It's more common in third world countries (especially ones that are basically a war zone), so that's why it isnt covered as much. While something like a terrorist attack in a first world country will get more attention because it happens much less frequently.