I have not heard that term used for the Norway attacker, nor for Timothy McVeigh. In neither case was their religion brought into question, nor was there any determination to go into churches and see if anything there was radicalizing them.
For example according to this article (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532).
"There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s."
So why is the religious angle important ONLY when the suspects/perps are from Islam or from another non Christian religion?
What exactly is so different about an Islamist radical, a Hindu radical, a Christian radical or for that matter a secular one? It really does not matter where they got their beliefs from what matters is what they did with them.
If you think about it the Boston attacks killed fewer people (although the injuries were greater in number) than the Newtown shootings, the Aurora shootings, or even the 2011 Tucson killings, these were all white males and none of them were Muslim.
I think that we should lump all these people under the same term, either you call them all terrorists, or you call them all extremists, or fanatics. But to single out a religion in one situation, but not in all of them, to me seems rather bigoted.
If anything the Boston attacks show exactly why racial profiling makes no sense, these criminals can be anyone, and can look like anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment