link

A must read.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 28/07/2011 11:32:36    997352

If Coulter is right (hmm) and we live in a terrifying world where "[a]ny criminal act committed by a white man with a gun is a right-wing, Christian conspiracy, whereas any criminal act committed by a nonwhite is the government violating someone's civil liberties" then why were so many media outlets basically assuming that Brevik was a Muslim extremist before the dust had even settled? Hell, it's almost as if the United Leftist League aren't as omnipotent and omnipresent as Coulter and co think.

whereangelsplay (Cork) - Posts: 240 - 28/07/2011 12:59:31    997447

jarhead
County: Westmeath
Posts: 276

996131 He claims he is against Nazism. He believes the Nazis should have used their military strength to drive the Muslims from the Holy Land. He also believes that the Holocaust led to the beginnings of multicuturism because Western Countries did not want to be seen to anti- minority.

His online video clearly shows that he regards his enemies as Marxism, Nazism, Islam and Multiculturism. Im not going to promote the video further by providing a link but its easily found. I found it slightly chilling.
Sounds like hs poster to me!

Real Kerry Fan (None) - Posts: 2957 - 28/07/2011 13:47:42    997504

Whereangelsplay

We've already discussed that on here, the first reaction was that this must have been an Islamic terrorist attack. A lot of people, myself included, jumped to that conclusion. But within a few hours, it became clear that this wasn't the case.

What Coulter said is different. Why did the New York Times almost never mention that the soldier who shot 51 of his comrades in Fort Hood was a Muslim? And why does the New York Times report that this Brevnik fellow was a Christian fundamentalist when he clearly wasn't? Why did they report the same thing about Timothy McVeigh? And why was Jared Lee Loughner identified as a pro-life extremist when there was NO evidence whatsoever that this was the case?

It appears that the New York Times and other left wing media outlets just love to smear Christians, conservatives, pro-lifers and other groups that they hate by associating them with madmen with whom they had nothing in common.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 28/07/2011 14:09:38    997529

Ann Coulter is a self-confessed bigot. She has said it herself.
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-miscellaneous-business/4699951-1.html

black&white (Sligo) - Posts: 1628 - 28/07/2011 14:32:45    997563

"It appears that the New York Times and other left wing media outlets just love to smear Christians, conservatives, pro-lifers and other groups that they hate by associating them with madmen with whom they had nothing in common. "

Yes and you can just as easily say that it appears that Daily Mail and other right wing media outlets just love to smear Muslims, liberals, pro-choicers and other groups that they hate by associating them with madmen with whom they had nothing in common.

If Coulter's basic argument was that "news media shouldn't jump to conclusions about the perpatrators of horrible crimes until they have all the facts about their background" she'd have a valid point. But I don't think she's saying that.

Honestly Seamus, if it had turned out that Brevik had a dusky complexion, would Coulter (or you) have batted an eyelid if the media immediately branded him a 'Muslim extremist' before anyone had even bothered to check if he'd set foot inside a mosque?

whereangelsplay (Cork) - Posts: 240 - 28/07/2011 14:34:20    997566

When did the Daily Mail or any of those other organisations do anything like that?

As for your other point, if he had been Arab looking, most people would have jumped to that conclusion. I think, if you're being honest, you would have too? But if he had never been to mosque, if he had only been incidentally Muslim, then it would be entirely inappropriate to link Islam with what he did.

The Fort Hood shooter was an Islamic man who ran around a US army base shooting soldiers while shouting 'God is great' in Arabic. I don't think you would have needed to have been Sherlock Holmes to have worked out the motive in that case.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 28/07/2011 14:55:18    997588

Coulter's message is very much "do as I say not what I do".

MesAmis (Dublin) - Posts: 13830 - 28/07/2011 15:04:33    997591

"As for your other point, if he had been Arab looking, most people would have jumped to that conclusion. I think, if you're being honest, you would have too? But if he had never been to mosque, if he had only been incidentally Muslim, then it would be entirely inappropriate to link Islam with what he did."

Exactly. But since he was white, the NY Times (and TV3 I guess) apparently jumped to the conclusions that 'he must be one of them mad fundamentalist Christians'. They were wrong to do so, but only as wrong as you or I would have been if Brevik had been Ahmed Brev Laden.

"The Fort Hood shooter was an Islamic man who ran around a US army base shooting soldiers while shouting 'God is great' in Arabic. I don't think you would have needed to have been Sherlock Holmes to have worked out the motive in that case. "

Look, I'm not defending the NY Times on the two specific instances Coulter refers to. If they were as cirumspect about Fort Hood as she claims, then they wrong to do so and she's got a point. But I fear her main point is that she (and you) believe that the liberal media have cornered the market on hypocrisy/mis-reporting/agenda-setting/whatever. You can't think of an instance where the right wing smears its 'enemies' by association? Let me get you started: if I don't support the Iraq War, I condone Saddam Hussein. If I don't support the death penalty for Ian Huntley/Thompson & Venables/whoever, I approve of the murder of innocent children.

whereangelsplay (Cork) - Posts: 240 - 28/07/2011 15:48:15    997635

Exactly. But since he was white, the NY Times (and TV3 I guess) apparently jumped to the conclusions that 'he must be one of them mad fundamentalist Christians'. They were wrong to do so, but only as wrong as you or I would have been if Brevik had been Ahmed Brev Laden.

Ok, I accept what you're saying. But there is a worldwide Islamic terrorist campaign led by Al-Qaeda. There have been major attacks in New York, Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai, etc. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or terrorist supporters, the vast majority of them are peaceful people. But there is a large scale Islamic terrorist campaign, with all attacks being done in the name of Islam. There is no such Christian campaign. There is no Christian version of Al-Qaeda.

One thing that liberals often do (my own uncle, who I like a lot, once did this) is equate Al-Qaeda with those who have shot abortionists dead in the United States. This is a ridiculous comparison. In the last 40 years, 4 abortionists have been assassinated. On the other hand, 3,000 people were killed in the space of a few hours on September 11th. You can't compare the two, which is what the New York Times and others like to do. In fact, what they do is worse. They try to highlight the religious aspect of right-wing extremism, while downplay the religious aspect of Islamic extremism.

Look, I'm not defending the NY Times on the two specific instances Coulter refers to. If they were as cirumspect about Fort Hood as she claims, then they wrong to do so and she's got a point. But I fear her main point is that she (and you) believe that the liberal media have cornered the market on hypocrisy/mis-reporting/agenda-setting/whatever. You can't think of an instance where the right wing smears its 'enemies' by association? Let me get you started: if I don't support the Iraq War, I condone Saddam Hussein. If I don't support the death penalty for Ian Huntley/Thompson & Venables/whoever, I approve of the murder of innocent children.

Ok, I agree that does happen. The Iraq war was a disgrace; Bush and Blair should be ashamed of themselves. Right-wing newspapers and television stations are more than capable of lying or distorting the truth. Coulter is a provocateur, as a right-winger, I think she's hilarious, but I can see why someone with liberal beliefs would find her annoying.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 28/07/2011 16:31:51    997682

Hah, I do believe me and Seamus have almost reached a consenus. I'm speechless. I should just walk away now.

Just one tiny teeny thing...

"One thing that liberals often do (my own uncle, who I like a lot, once did this) is equate Al-Qaeda with those who have shot abortionists dead in the United States. This is a ridiculous comparison. In the last 40 years, 4 abortionists have been assassinated. On the other hand, 3,000 people were killed in the space of a few hours on September 11th. You can't compare the two, which is what the New York Times and others like to do. In fact, what they do is worse. They try to highlight the religious aspect of right-wing extremism, while downplay the religious aspect of Islamic extremism."

It depends what you mean by 'equate'. If we're talking numbers-of-dead (like it's the world's grimmest game of Top Trumps), then of course Muslim extremism is worse. But at its most basic level, the religious extremist's motivation is the exact same irrespective, to take human life in complete contradiction of the teachings of your particular religion, in the deluded belief that you're doing God/Allah's work. Perhaps this is what Uncle 89 was getting at?

whereangelsplay (Cork) - Posts: 240 - 28/07/2011 16:47:59    997701

Coulter is a provocateur, as a right-winger, I think she's hilarious

Coulters a chick?

Horse (Laois) - Posts: 1146 - 28/07/2011 16:55:04    997715

It depends what you mean by 'equate'. If we're talking numbers-of-dead (like it's the world's grimmest game of Top Trumps), then of course Muslim extremism is worse. But at its most basic level, the religious extremist's motivation is the exact same irrespective, to take human life in complete contradiction of the teachings of your particular religion, in the deluded belief that you're doing God/Allah's work. Perhaps this is what Uncle 89 was getting at?

Yes, yes, a consensus appears to be forming here. Don't be too surprised, I'm a reasonable, rational human being don't you know.

On a philosophical level, two groups taking human life in the name of their God is the same, but on a practical level, with Al-Qaeda being a huge threat to the West, you can't compare the two. There could be a suicide bombing on the Luas someday, and it certainly won't be done by Christian extremists.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 28/07/2011 17:28:33    997746

link

Good video here, Bill O'Reilly addresses how certain media outlets have treated this case. Keep in mind that 'The New York Times' have done everything in their power to downplay the Islamic identities of Al-Qaeda style atrocities around the world, most notably at Fort Hood.

Seamus89 (Kilkenny) - Posts: 3848 - 31/07/2011 11:40:01    999252

Maybe there is another reason the NY Times reports the way it does, might be something to do with in the new world of Obama there is no longer a war on terror, to admit that somehow American soil had been violated again would be hard to take. On another thing the availability of guns seems to "colour" and deepen peoples extremism, if you look at all the gun massacres in Finland and now Norway the availability of guns gives a powerful voice to extreme views. Some of these people who do this are mentally unstable and had some messed up upbringing which mixes with guns and paranoia and before you know it people are lying around dead while the rest of us are asking why. Maybe if guns where less prevalent these massacres wouldn't happen.

arock (Dublin) - Posts: 4955 - 01/08/2011 20:01:16    1001018