Since the events of Aurora, Colorado have unfolded commentators at large have asked how this crime came to be and more importantly how the crime came to be perpetrated and how do we as a society come to grips with such a crime? Is it an indictment of our times, a situation of one lone crazed individual or the escalation of desensitized senseless crime that knows no bounds?
Yet the more this author researches this topic another question also comes into mind. How do we the public relate to the perpetrator himself? At present the media (self included) have given James Holmes the moniker of being mentally challenged, delusional and that of a person unable to tell the difference between fact and fiction. Or to be succinct we have termed him the Joker, the embodiment of a supposed mad individual who had literally taken the embodiment of a comic anti hero. Yet what if James Holmes wasn’t white, what if he were black (just look at all the racial tension that has been released with the George Zimmerman trial because color was made an issue) or Muslim would we the media still cling to the notion that he is still just a deluded individual bent on diabolical role play? Or would we dehumanize him as is often the case with other supposed individuals who deem guilty of nefarious crimes?
Point in case is the thread of discussion I came across Canada’s globeandmail: Have a think and see what you make of it.
if he was an arab=> terrorist
If he was a black=> thug
now he is a white=> mental illness????
And then there was this comment via Pax that caused an uproar:
Absolutely amazing………When a young Muslim male even thinks about a terrible act he is painted as a jihadist, a terrorist, and his religious leader an inciteful lunatic.
Now look at the discription of James Holmes and his wonderful Pastor and admiral things said by his friends. He gets his day in court and is given a platform. A young Muslim (in Toronto)is demonized, court proceedings banned, guided to frame himself by a police informant…the young Muslim who has killed no one gets 25 years in prison with no parole for just contemplating a terrorist act under the instruction of a police informant. Almost all of the so-called Toronto 18 got off because of scant little evidence but the authorities needed a scapegoat to justify the intense media and legal scrutiny.
James Holmes will be painted as a good decent, intelligent citizen (not a terrorist) and he will get to speak his mind and he might even get the same sentence that Norway’s Breivik got. Insanity.
No matter what…this guy terrorized a whole city and killed a lot of inncent people….So who is a terrorist…this guy or a muslim kids ramblings on the internet who killed no one. The Christian James Holmes will never be referred to as a Christian terrorist.
The media s a joke.
The difference is that the Muslim is blaspheming claiming to kill in the name of GOD.
While this guy is just a complete idiot at least he doesn’t claim to be working for god.
Bottom line is both should be taken back of the barn and shot. Let GOD decide who is the worst the Blaspheming religious nut or the regular nut.
When a Muslim male commits an act of terrorism in the name of his religion, yes, he is labelled a terrorist by the press. However, people close to the individual will protest how out of character it was for him, while other Muslims will complain that their religion is being unfairly maligned. Too often, the Muslim terrorist will insist that he was following a specific Imaam’s orders or Islamic law in general.
So far, no one knows what this lunatic was protesting, but he didn’t make any proclamation of doing it for Christianity.
There are good reasons why we have different names to describe different things and why it might be downright scary when you cannot discern a difference.
Lets try and help you:
We call some kinds of violent acts ‘Terrorism’ if we suppose the action is designed like a ‘warning’ and show of force hopefully leveraged into future political objectives.
It’s not just that I blow up your car (as some act of revenge or to stop you from driving somewhere or for fun),
its really intended to tell you I want my lawnmower back and this car demolition is 1 step in that objective.
Now, If we found out the guy who blew up your car did so as the ‘objective in itself’ (revenge or stop you driving whatever) then we don’t call this a terrorist act.
And then here is why something else is considered ‘different’:
If we found out the guy who blew up your car happened to be a Muslim kid but was so deluded, mentally ill and didn’t seem to care ‘who’s car’ but believed it was ‘Space Aliens’ and he could become god for blowing it up?
Here again we call this something else besides ‘terrorism’.
I hope that helps you understand why we call different ‘things’ by ‘different names’ and assign ‘different meanings’?
You seem to be saying that a muslim guy wouldn’t get his day in court. No? Really? You don’t think he would get to state his case? Well then let me ask you this…What do you suppose his defence would be? That the “west is decadent and it is allah’s will that islam strike to the heart of the infidels”? I can imagine it would be something like that. Well guess what…That’s bvllsh1t. There is no allah and you people are a bunch of brainwashed superstitious robots.
Pax…you are an idiot and it’s pretty plain to see where your loyalties lie. I suggest you take your medieval mythology back to the middle east where it belongs.
When the Canadian Muslim immigrant appeared in Ontario courts after drowning his daughters, The Globe and Mail closed the comments. Remember that, people…