Search results

Whilst I don't disagree entirely I take umbrage at your last statement, they/we may not be consiously prejudice but there are undeniable inconsistencies. Take the 'terrorist' Australian cafe hostage siege recently compare it to Anders Breivik's 'massacre.' Both the actions of ciminally insane...

No, what I'm saying is that there is a double standard in the way that the press reports these matters. There could be a terrorist motive regardless of his religion or ethnicity but you can bet your bottom dollar if the co-pilot was a muslim the press would be frothing at the mouth crying...

Lone muslim comitts atrocity = Terrorism Lone non muslim comitts atrocity = Actions of a madman Reported as terrorism - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-30473983 Reported as mass murder and a massacre - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17789206 What's the difference?

Lone muslim comitts atrocity = Terrorism Lone non muslim comitts atrocity = Actions of a madman. cf. Anders Breivik

That'll depend exclusively on the ethnicity of the co-pilot I'd imagine.

Just imagine for a second if the co-pilot was a muslim. How will this be reported? If they are it'll be terrorism. If they aren't it'll be a tragedy or the act of a madman.