Terrorist attack on Army school in Peshawar - Page 25

Originally posted by: Feiry.Fawkes

So on one hand many say these terrorist aren't Muslims nor do they belong to any religion, but the same instant expecting everyone including Muslims to condemn terrorism is considered bigotry/Islamaphobic ? So someone wants have the cake and eat it too ? 😆 If I were to go by their stupid logic, Indians shouldn't be expected to condemn rapes either ? Yup sounds just as lame. Why shouldn't it be expected for everyone to condemn terrorism including Muslims ?

The article is nothing but stupid in my opinion.
Terrorism SHOULD BE condemned, no ifs or buts. Period.

Originally posted by: LEO88

Because hitlar was a muslim ?

George Bush was a muslim????

Nataniaho is a muslim?

Musulini was a muslim? ?

Originally posted by: Bazigar

I agree with the context , the way people ask others as if they approve such fanatic elements just because by default the perpetrator carry the same identity. Any right rational thinking human condemn such act and its nothing to do the perpetrators identity.

Majority voice always disapprove such radical elements. Those religious fanatics are always numbered in few. Even we count total number in those respective groups they may be numbered in few thousands at most a lakh. Only thing they manipulate religion got help from scrupulous elements having own interest in power capture and having modern weapons. More importantly they are more communicative and their act give them enough media coverage. Lets the united voice should be such that will silence these fanatics .

Originally posted by: kitkataha

It's like asking all black people to take responsibility for a few that kill in gang related crimes, or blaming the entire police force in light of Ferguson. The article raises a valid question: why is it expected for Muslims to condemn acts that they have no part in? They do not ASSOCIATE themselves with the psychopaths and these individuals in no way represent them or their belief. Everyone, that is a human being, should be expected to condemn atrocities, not just one race/religion/creed. I however, do see the other side of the argument, because it would be "stupid" to dismiss it.

Nope, it's definitely not the case. With that logic why should Indians condemn "rape" when not every Indian is a rapist. And it's not about blaming or taking the blame, it's about condemning the wrong. Condemning the wrong should be everyone's priority above cast, creed, religion, nation. And terrorism is WRONG. And I expect everyone including Muslims to condemn it, just the way I expect Indians and everyone out there to condemn rape. I really didn't appreciate the article or the way Muslims have been singled out. Everyone includes "Muslims". Why create a barrier by not including them with "Everyone". So yeh, article is meh.

Edit: I think we both are sorta saying the same thing expect for viewing it with a slight variation.

@kitkata
Agree with u , yes act of terror is condemnable . That article address the question in the context of Australia incident . If a perpetrator did a crime other ask / see people in suspicion /as guilty the person who carry the same identity that the perpetrator have by default as if those who carry the same identity are part or support the terrorist till they dont express their view. denounce the act, condemn the act. As a citizen of respective country , as a relation of humanity . between right -wrong everyone should condemn and denounce such act and yes there is no doubt that the perpetrator should be countered on the issue of his identity that he claims to represent or advocate for.

Yes, everyone SHOULD rightly condemn blasphemous acts. However, there's no need for an Indian man or a Muslim family to be apologetic for an act committed by a perpatator that they happen to share a trait with. That's all.

Originally posted by: Feiry.Fawkes

Nope, it's definitely not the case. With that logic why should Indians condemn "rape" when not every Indian is a rapist. And it's not about blaming or taking the blame, it's about condemning the wrong. Condemning the wrong should be everyone's priority above cast, creed, religion, nation. And terrorism is WRONG. And I expect everyone including Muslims to condemn it, just the way I expect Indians and everyone out there to condemn rape. I really didn't appreciate the article or the way Muslims have been singled out. Everyone includes "Muslims". Why create a barrier by not including them with "Everyone". So yeh, article is meh.

Edit: I think we both are sorta saying the same thing expect for viewing it with a slight variation.

BI: I do agree with you. The Muslim communities denounce such acts and fully cooperate in countering extreme ideologies. However, it's irking when it is assumed that Muslims are sympathetic UNTIL they raise their voice. That is like me assuming, Hindus are symathetic with what Shiv Sena believes in UNTIL they speak out. Time and time again, people raise their voice and hold programs in junction with the government to address the problems that Muslims are facing. However, that does not get any media coverage of course, which is why it is assumed Muslims do not speak against these acts. The social media has to a certain extent changed that though, and people's voices are heard on a bigger scale.

Originally posted by: kitkataha

Yes, everyone SHOULD rightly condemn blasphemous acts. However, there's no need for an Indian man or a Muslim family to be apologetic for an act committed by a perpatator that they happen to share a trait with. That's all.

Who's asking Muslims to be apologetic for terrorists ? Condemning terrorism doesn't equate to being apologetic and that's where the article is wrong.

---------

@BI: Agree with ya completely. The article is just stating how one shouldn't expect Muslims or that one should stop expecting Muslims to condemn terrorism, which is simply baffling to me. Expecting them to condemn terrorism should top the list for the very precise reason you echoed, which is why it sounded like a complete baloney to me. But unfortunately it's easier to keep on defending the religion than going out there excepting the problem.

I just used the example of Indians and rape for the very reason. Indians have really become vocal for rapes have become a daily news for the country than any other country out there. Does being vocal about a problem mean the value and respect we have for the country lessens ? No right. Similarly Muslims echoing and condemning terrorism doesn't demean their religion, instead it gives out clear cut message. So yes I do expect Muslims to condemn terrorism contrary to what the article is suggesting.

On this incident ,there will always be an effort by fanatics, fundamentalists to hijack a society towards a extremist one. They can be countered - resist by force and simultaneously united effort by people only. There opinion matters , the much more the strong the united opinions the more that will deter the fanatic elements. Even a govt. policies depend on people only or else they will pass on the buck to each other just like musaraf statement. Even those terrorists are playing for the gallery whoever support them. rather than any committed cause /sect / religion / anything else . After all those terrorists are human not some alien. Just like in hitler case

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.