Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It is not, at all, true that the international and (especially) American press does not pay attention to violence that is not born of violence. Offer your proof if you can.
What on earth are you on about? Where did Dag ever say that? (and what is it even supposed to mean?)
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Obviously, violence is an integral part of the human experience and it is happening every which way around the globe, but should the press report on a isolated incident in Zimbabwe over a systematic run of killing perpetuated by extremist muslims?
Well thats where perspective comes in, or should come in, at least to some elemental degree.
You compare a hypothetical "isolated incident in Zimbabwe" with "a systematic run of killing perpetuated by extremist muslims".
In truth, of course, what has been taking place in Zimbabwe has been a systematic run of torturing, killing, and starving of anyone deemed a potential part of any future protest; the bulldozering of entire city parts deemed potentially unreliable.
, more people have suffered in Zimbabwe alone by the one petty dictator's totalitarianism, than have in all of Europe combined by Islamist terrorism. 700 000 people have lost their homes, their livelihoods or both, in Zimbabwe, in just the last two years. Seven hundred thousand people.
Now does this mean that Islamist terrorism is A-OK? Course not. Or that it is a mere trifle? Course not.
What it does mean is that you are, in your post here, showcasing a school example of the kind of myopia that Dag may have tried reflecting a saner sense of perspective against.
Those, like you, who describe Islamist terrorism as a Black Death-like scourge of today's mankind that makes all other organised political terror shrink to mere "occassional violence of other extremists" in comparison, have not just gotten imprisoned by a ludicrous loss of perspective. They are also showcasing the exact incredulously limited horizon that Dag was describing re the US media. You proved her point.
I mean, for God's sake, listen to yourself:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
When Nazi Germany engaged in it's unholy and violent attempt to subjugate the world, it was not the only source of violence on earth.
Would dagmarka, then, have bleated about how the press focused only on germanic violence?
Anyone who equates the current crop of Islamist violence with the havoc wrecked by Nazism has lost all and any sense of perspective.
The Nazis killed six million Jews alone. Osama bin Laden had three thousand Americans killed. I'm sorry, but let's be brutally cold-minded here. Add the thousands of London, Madrid, the hundreds who were killed in terrorist attacks in Turkey, Morocco, and you still have fewer people than were killed in any of the myriad civil wars that accompanied the Cold War throughout the developing world. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan, in all their brutal primitivity, did not murder more than a range of brutal dictatorships on the left and the right did in their time during the Cold War.
F*ck, more people have died in the Congo over the past decade, than at the hands of all Islamist terrorist attacks across the world added up. Do you know how many people have died in the civil wars in Congo over the past decade? Care to make a guess? Do you perhaps think it's comparable to Iraq, the bloodiest of all war grounds of Islamists yet, if you would choose to frame the war there as such? Think again.
In between three comma seven and four comma six MILLION people died in the civil wars in Congo, during the last ten years. And not an Islamist in sight. This is what you're trying to describe as the pesky "occassional violence of other extremists" that, whether it is Zimbabwe- or Germany-bound, pales in significance compared to the one Big Battle against Evil we face.
Believe it or not, but even today, Islamist terrorism is still
responsible for a mere minority of the victims of state and non-state terrorism across the world. Does that make the actual horror of its attacks any less? No. Does it make the brainwashed hate of their perpetrators any less venal or fearsome? No. Does it mean we need to be any less alert to their networks, their plots, their propoganda? No.
But get a grip, for chrissakes. It's hardly suddenly the only game in town. It's hardly the only thing we should worry about or focus on, to the marginalisation of all "occasional" violence from other camps. We've seen worse, a lot worse. The Yugoslav wars were worse to the nth, in sheer numbers of victims, than anything the Muslim terrorists have done in Europe and the US combined.
Now I know that the US had not encountered mass terrorism on its own soil before, in the way that Europe has had a long tradition of having to counter. So I realise that the trauma hit all the harder. But you had three thousand people dying and you're equating it with Hitler
In your eagerness to reduce all the world's chaos, suffering, and political fanaticisms to one, huge, all-overshadowing, all-explaining epic struggle between Good and Evil, you have succumbed to outright hysteria now.