Well two people before me also ‘didn’t get it’.
However it’s just drivel. Governments are there with the primary need to protect their citizens, not the rights of others. If say, the government of India expelled all white people, it might be racist and wrong, but they would not be expected to equally consider expelling all Indians. The indigenes are the people the government represents.
Because it was in the article you provided. But if you want to know what reaction that statement elicited from my reptillian brain, it’s the thought “Of course, it comes with being a minority group.”
Why don’t you ask Christians in predominantly Islamic countries how they feel. Ok, am I cleared? You have my permission to get “bolshie” now. Curious as to how it goes.
Point of order: citizens != indigenes. In many countries (the UK for one) plenty of non-indigenes are citizens.
Also, I would say that a government has a duty to protect those who find themselves legally within the borders of the relevant country, citizens or not. Just as an example, the gulf monarchies have been rightly excoriated for allowing immigrant construction and menial workers (who are there having followed the immigration laws of the place) like slaves in all but name.
Agh, edit window missed… at the end I meant to say "for allowing immigrant construction and menial workers <…> to be treated like slaves in all but name.
Sorry! :smack:
You’re nitpicking flippant sarcasm.
Agreed. It might still technically be the ‘primary’ duty to protect actual citizens, but with ‘secondary’ duty to all other legal residents and visitors being just as important.
Governments should represent citizens. That’s what the word “citizen” means. Great Britain has many Muslim citizens.
By your reasoning regarding indigenes, the U.S. government’s primary responsibility would be to native Americans.
Well we do get free health care.
Well…“health care”.
But she’s not wrong. “Terrorism” is much more widely used when the attack is by Muslims on white non-Muslims than when it’s on non-white Muslims by white people. This is a problem. And it is a problem that does need attention drawn to.
I imagine they are horrified that someone attacked a group of people simply because of their religion. And I’m sure you would agree with them, right?
That’s what Christians do, right? Feel saddened and horrified that Muslims were attacked simply because of their religious beliefs.
Because Christianity is the religion of “Love your neighbour”, right?
Looks like they published info about the guy. He’s a 47 year old Welshman who apparently yelled “I want to kill all Muslims” before he engaged in his act of terrorism:
Apparently the suspect was pinned down by some men and then some bystanders started to hit and kick him. The imam of the mosque came out and told everyone not to harm the man.
[QUOTE= The Guardian]
One of the men who held the suspect on the ground, 29-year-old cafe owner Mohammed, said: “The imam came from the mosque and he said, ‘Listen, we are fasting, this is Ramadan, we are not supposed to do these kinds of things, so please step back.’
“For that reason this guy is still alive today. This is the only reason. If the imam was not there, he wouldn’t be there today.”
[/QUOTE]
Serious cognitive dissonance for the alleged attacker and for all Islamophones, I bet.
I got it, but it was still a shitty thing to say.
I’m not sure why some people are offended at the comment. It was clearly a sarcastic post highlighting the idiocy of the large number of people who immediately call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the West after every radical Islamist terrorist attack. The average Muslim is no more or less responsible for Islamic terrorist attacks than the average white person is for what this person did last night.
i just thought it was interesting. And I thought the Brits had a good point. Theres still warm bodies on the ground and somebody is trying to score points (not anyone here) in a ghoulish game of “got you”.
I see the same objections from all sides after each attack. Shut up until we get confirmation. Unfortunatly of late the suspicions seem to be true.
I can understand if it’s three days later but how about we wait until the victims are actually peeled out from under the van before playing some perverse game of “catch the bigot”
Meh. Who are supposed to be offended by it really?
In a refreshing change from the usual “he was quiet”, “he kept himself to himself” platitudes, one of the neighbours of the perpetrator is being quoted by multiple UK outlets as saying “He’s always been a complete cunt”.
I was about to post about this.
It is the first time I have seen something like this being reported. It is always “this was a total surprise”, “a tremendous shock, would never have imagined it”, “he was unremarkable”, “he never struck me as somebody capable of doing this”… Never before I had read about some neighbor saying “doesn’t surprise me, he always was an utter asshole”.
Has anybody else seen this kind of thing before, I wonder?
Except that in the UK, terrorism was a term used long before any Muslims got in on the act. Most of us grew up with terrorists being of the Northern Irish, white persuasion (both Catholic and Protestant). We have no difficulty thinking that terrorists can be white too.
John David Stutts was voted Most Likely to Kill Buckwheat.
More seriously, James Wenneker von Brunn was a notorious antisemite who stirred up a ton of shit before he ultimately shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum.