Worldwide Social Media Outrage After Muslim Students Killed In North Carolina

First topic message reminder :

The fatal shooting of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Tuesday afternoon has prompted uproar around the world, particularly from Muslims in the Middle East who say U.S. media coverage of stories involving Muslims is often biased.

Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, surrendered to police after allegedly killing 23-year-old Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, in their home.

It's not fully clear what prompted the shooting. Some reports point to a possible parking dispute as the catalyst, although Hicks also appeared to harbor vehemently anti-religious views, not only toward Islam but toward all faiths. His Facebook page includes a post denouncing both Christianity and Islam. In January, Hicks posted a photo of what he claimed was his .38-caliber revolver.

Only a few media outlets, most of them local news organizations, reported on the killings late into the night on Tuesday. Some critics on social media suggested that because the victims were Muslims, national media was not quicker to cover the story. Meanwhile, critics say, U.S. media is rife with coverage of the Islamic State and other Muslim extremist groups, as well as commentary about how Islam is supposedly the most dangerous of all the major religions.

Many Muslims on social media predicted that Hicks, as a white man, is likely to be labeled as mentally ill, while a Muslim shooter would automatically be considered a terrorist.

"I would like to see world leaders condemning their murder," Seema Huneidi, a 22-year-old Jordanian communications and media specialist, told The WorldPost. "I would like to see public uproar. But most importantly I would like to see these innocent victims get the same treatment and coverage that the Sydney Lindt Café hostage situation and the Charlie Hebdo attacks got."

The evidence of social media suggests that the young, recently married couple killed Tuesday were dedicated humanitarians. Yusor Abu-Salha, who was reportedly studying human biology at North Carolina State University, had posted photos on her Facebook of a recent trip to Turkey, where she said she volunteered at a makeshift dental clinic helping Syrian refugees. Barakat, a dental student at UNC-Chapel Hill, was planning to travel to Turkey this summer. He'd set up a fundraising campaign called "Syria Smiles" to provide dental care to Syrians in need. So far, $39,666 has been raised.

Zaher Sahloul, president of the Syrian American Medical Society, called Bakarat a "model dentist who helped the Syrian people against the world's apathy." He compared Bakarat's death to that of Kayla Mueller, the young American hostage who, it was confirmed this week, recently died as a captive of the Islamic State militant group.

Some people, furious with the media coverage of the killings, took to Twitter to mourn the loss of the young Chapel Hill family, with many using the hashtags #MuslimLivesMatter and #ChapelHillShooting.

(Followed by a long list of tweets)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-shooting-social-media_n_6660220.html?ir=Religion&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Then you should know why such questions are pointless. I will repeat very slowly: I agree with the jurisprudence of the Quran.  Entirely.

No it is just a copout on your part as you must follow one of the many Islamic school of thoughts do you not?
As surely you follow the man made writings of islamic works by some of the scholars.
Who and what have you formed your views from or is it just the Quran?
So it is very relevant, all you are doing is claiming you follow your own views, without expressing what influenced your beliefs.

Only an idiot would think my beliefs are based solely on religious scripture. Lol! My influences go beyond religion. It is you who are so closed minded that you cannot accept this. Which is why you fail to argue convincingly.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

No it is just a copout on your part as you must follow one of the many Islamic school of thoughts do you not?
As surely you follow the man made writings of islamic works by some of the scholars.
Who and what have you formed your views from or is it just the Quran?
So it is very relevant, all you are doing is claiming you follow your own views, without expressing what influenced your beliefs.

Only an idiot would think my beliefs are based solely on religious scripture. Lol! My influences go beyond religion. It is you who are so closed minded that you cannot accept this. Which is why you fail to argue convincingly.

Really and yet you do not want to talk about them and shy away at every turn to debate them, which is what religious people tend to do when there are in a couner.
This is fine by me, it just shows you continue to weasel out fo the debate.
The only close minded people I tend to know are religious.
Funny that!

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Only an idiot would think my beliefs are based solely on religious scripture. Lol! My influences go beyond religion. It is you who are so closed minded that you cannot accept this. Which is why you fail to argue convincingly.

Really and yet you do not want to talk about them and shy away at every turn to debate them, which is what religious people tend to do when there are in a couner.
This is fine by me, it just shows you continue to weasel out fo the debate.
The onlyu close minded people I tend to know are religious.
Funny that!

My influences are religiousm scientific and philosophical and far to wide to discuss in a short paragraph.

Perhaps your influences are so narrow that you can discuss them in one sentence. Good for you. I like simple people.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Really and yet you do not want to talk about them and shy away at every turn to debate them, which is what religious people tend to do when there are in a couner.
This is fine by me, it just shows you continue to weasel out fo the debate.
The onlyu close minded people I tend to know are religious.
Funny that!

My influences are religiousm scientific and philosophical and far to wide to discuss in a short paragraph.

Perhaps your influences are so narrow that you can discuss them in one sentence. Good for you. I like simple people.

So mumbo jumbo then if they are based on something you cannot prove exists and what you are really saying is they are the beliefs of men created centruies ago that influence you.
So you keep providing excuses to not talk about them and I am not even asking you to talk about all of them, we did start on one point then you as usual deflected away from this.
This is what I meant to Ben about being critical of religion and how religious people react.
Thanks for proving my point

To criticise God [or Allah] is like a dagger to their hearts to the deeply religious.


Who said that? [I think it was me]

nicko wrote:To criticise God [or Allah] is like a dagger to their hearts to the deeply religious.


Who said that?     [I think it was me]

Considering the poor grammar, I agree that it probably was you. ;-)

Dear Zack, bollocks!!!!!

So, we are agreed there is no evidence of a hate motive in the Hicks (Chapel Hill) murders?

Ben, I think what hate crime prohibitions target are identifiable populations of people, like blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and so forth.

I don't think you can equate group identity with an abstract idea like atheism, any more than you can with Marxism or Antidisestablishmentarianism. If you could, I would love to bring hate crime allegations against the Supreme Court for ruling against Democrats in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Lol.

nicko wrote:Dear Zack, bollocks!!!!!

You're so easy to wind up, still.

Original Quill wrote:So, we are agreed there is no evidence of a hate motive in the Hicks (Chapel Hill) murders?

Ben, I think what hate crime prohibitions target are identifiable populations of people, like blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and so forth.

I don't think you can equate group identity with an abstract idea like atheism, any more than you can with Marxism or Antidisestablishmentarianism.  If you could, I would love to bring hate crime allegations against the Supreme Court for ruling against Democrats in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Lol.  

No we are not agreed, the FBI are still looking into it.

risingsun wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So, we are agreed there is no evidence of a hate motive in the Hicks (Chapel Hill) murders?

Ben, I think what hate crime prohibitions target are identifiable populations of people, like blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and so forth.

I don't think you can equate group identity with an abstract idea like atheism, any more than you can with Marxism or Antidisestablishmentarianism.  If you could, I would love to bring hate crime allegations against the Supreme Court for ruling against Democrats in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Lol.  

No we are not agreed, the FBI are still looking into it.

I only meant that they haven't found and/or presented anything so far. As I indicated above, I have no expectation one way or the other as to what they will find. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that hate might have been a motive, especially given it occurred in the southern state of North Carolina.

But the element of motive goes to state of mind evidence (note: motive is not always necessary in criminal law). If it is not openly admitted, the authorities will have to rely on inferential evidence. How tight the evidence must be is up to a jury, but it's not easy.

Most of the time the FBI does not prosecute.

Original Quill wrote:So, we are agreed there is no evidence of a hate motive in the Hicks (Chapel Hill) murders?

Ben, I think what hate crime prohibitions target are identifiable populations of people, like blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and so forth.

I don't think you can equate group identity with an abstract idea like atheism, any more than you can with Marxism or Antidisestablishmentarianism.  If you could, I would love to bring hate crime allegations against the Supreme Court for ruling against Democrats in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Lol.  

I hope you're not suggesting that you have to be religious to commit a hate crime?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So, we are agreed there is no evidence of a hate motive in the Hicks (Chapel Hill) murders?

Ben, I think what hate crime prohibitions target are identifiable populations of people, like blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays and so forth.

I don't think you can equate group identity with an abstract idea like atheism, any more than you can with Marxism or Antidisestablishmentarianism.  If you could, I would love to bring hate crime allegations against the Supreme Court for ruling against Democrats in the 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore. Lol.  

I hope you're not suggesting that you have to be religious to commit a hate crime?

No, but you do have to target an identifiable group, like a religion. You are confusing motive with whom the law protects.

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I hope you're not suggesting that you have to be religious to commit a hate crime?

No, but you do have to target an identifiable group, like a religion.  You are confusing motive with whom the law protects.

Some people identify a group without any visible signs of that group. It's called PREJUDICE.

Your views is that of a simpleton.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, but you do have to target an identifiable group, like a religion.  You are confusing motive with whom the law protects.

Some people identify a group without any visible signs of that group. It's called PREJUDICE.

Your views is that of a simpleton.

Now you are getting way over the top emotional and you are attacking Quill for no reason, which shows clearly the debate with me has made you too emotive debating about your religion.
This is the point I was making to Ben
Religious people cannot take any critical views of their faith and get very over emotional, proving how blinded they are to rational thinking and reason

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Some people identify a group without any visible signs of that group. It's called PREJUDICE.

Your views is that of a simpleton.

Now you are getting way over the top emotional and you are attacking Quill for no reason, which shows clearly the debate with me has made you too emotive debating about your religion.
This is the point I was making to Ben
Religious people cannot take any critical views of their faith and get very over emotional, proving how blinded they are to rational thinking and reason

Lol! Calm down. I'm sure Quill is a big boy and can defend himself.

No need to bring your daddy Ben into this.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Now you are getting way over the top emotional and you are attacking Quill for no reason, which shows clearly the debate with me has made you too emotive debating about your religion.
This is the point I was making to Ben
Religious people cannot take any critical views of their faith and get very over emotional, proving how blinded they are to rational thinking and reason

Lol! Calm down. I'm sure Quill is a big boy and can defend himself.

No need to bring your daddy Ben into this.

I am fine and dandy mate, you need to clam down as seen you over reacted here and over nothing.
That is because you have allowed yourself to get too emotive defending your faith

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Calm down. I'm sure Quill is a big boy and can defend himself.

No need to bring your daddy Ben into this.

I am fine and dandy mate, you need to clam down as seen you over reacted here and over nothing.
That is because you have allowed yourself to get too emotive defending your faith

Lol! Your arrogance enables you to give yourself too much credit.

I have no problem being described as emotional. I take it as a compliment.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I am fine and dandy mate, you need to clam down as seen you over reacted here and over nothing.
That is because you have allowed yourself to get too emotive defending your faith

Lol! Your arrogance enables you to give yourself too much credit.

I have no problem being described as emotional. I take it as a compliment.

I happily admit my arrogance to someone who is just as arrogant if not worse, so much so I place that person in their place, because you being that person has become very emotive.
So are you claiming you were not being arrogant to Quill?

take your time

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Your arrogance enables you to give yourself too much credit.

I have no problem being described as emotional. I take it as a compliment.

I happily admit my arrogance to someone who is just as arrogant if not worse, so much so I place that person in their place, because you being that person has become very emotive.
So are you claiming you were not being arrogant to Quill?

take your time

I was respondong to a precise point.

Notice how he as failed to respond and forced you to carry his banner. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I happily admit my arrogance to someone who is just as arrogant if not worse, so much so I place that person in their place, because you being that person has become very emotive.
So are you claiming you were not being arrogant to Quill?

take your time

I was respondong to a precise point.

Notice how he as failed to respond and forced you to carry his banner. Lol!

You claimed he was stupid, I have done this being arrogant myself, just as you were doing the same. I make no excuses when I can be or even sometimes emotive, but it proves very much so you have been doing the same even more so when the lol start to appear, as if it shields your emotions from being exposed.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I was respondong to a precise point.

Notice how he as failed to respond and forced you to carry his banner. Lol!

You claimed he was stupid, I have done this being arrogant myself, just as you were doing the same. I make no excuses when I can be or even sometimes emotive, but it proves very much so you have been doing the same even more so when the lol start to appear, as if it shields your emotions from being exposed.

No, I said his point was that of a simpleton.

I suggest you learn to understand when you read.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You claimed he was stupid, I have done this being arrogant myself, just as you were doing the same. I make no excuses when I can be or even sometimes emotive, but it proves very much so you have been doing the same even more so when the lol start to appear, as if it shields your emotions from being exposed.

No,  I said his point was that of a simpleton.

I suggest you learn to understand when you read.

His views are far from simple and you only view his simple because you believe yours is right, but again it is born from arrogance to claim.
So I can read very clearly, you just forget how well I understand the human mind!

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No,  I said his point was that of a simpleton.

I suggest you learn to understand when you read.

His views are far from simple and you only view his simple because you believe yours is right, but again it is born from arrogance to claim.
So I can read very clearly, you just forget how well I understand the human mind!

Excuse me but the prejudice of people exists no matter what I think or do.

People identify others belonging to s particular group based on prejudice all the time. For example Sikhs are attacked for being mistaken as Muslim. D'UH!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



His views are far from simple and you only view his simple because you believe yours is right, but again it is born from arrogance to claim.
So I can read very clearly, you just forget how well I understand the human mind!

Excuse me but the prejudice of people exists no matter what I think or do.

People identify others belonging to s particular group based on prejudice all the time.  For example Sikhs are attacked for being mistaken as Muslim. D'UH!

Where did I say otherwise, it does not make Quill simple in any shape or form, but you choose to be arrogant, at least I can admit I certainly am arrogant at times.
You see to not understand when you are doing the same and are very hypocritical not knowing you are doing so. Maybe it is your left sided brain at work again.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Excuse me but the prejudice of people exists no matter what I think or do.

People identify others belonging to s particular group based on prejudice all the time.  For example Sikhs are attacked for being mistaken as Muslim. D'UH!

Where did I say otherwise, it does not make Quill simple in any shape or form, but you choose to be arrogant, at least I can admit I certainly am arrogant at times.
You see to not understand when you are doing the same and are very hypocritical not knowing you are doing so. Maybe it is your left sided brain at work again.

Then you actually agree with me and not Quill, you do realise that? Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Where did I say otherwise, it does not make Quill simple in any shape or form, but you choose to be arrogant, at least I can admit I certainly am arrogant at times.
You see to not understand when you are doing the same and are very hypocritical not knowing you are doing so. Maybe it is your left sided brain at work again.

Then you actually agree with me and not Quill, you do realise that? Lol!

I agree with both of you, can you think why, go read again what he said

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Then you actually agree with me and not Quill, you do realise that? Lol!

I agree with both of you, can you think why, go read again what he said

It was a binary choice. Not quantum physics. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I agree with both of you, can you think why, go read again what he said

It was a binary choice. Not quantum physics. Lol!

Again I think you need to read again what he said, as he was correct, just as you were.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, but you do have to target an identifiable group, like a religion.  You are confusing motive with whom the law protects.

Some people identify a group without any visible signs of that group. It's called PREJUDICE.

Your views is that of a simpleton.*

Well then, aren't we lucky that this thread is not about me?

Let's go back to that original claim of yours.   The idea of prejudice comes from the contraction of 'pre'--advanced--and 'justice'--moral decision.  An advanced decision...meaning what?  Generally, a decision before you have reason or actual experience upon which to base it.  Or, in other words, a groundless opinion.

So it is premature to speak of judging until you know what it is you are judging.  Prejudice, then, would be judging that object in advance of reason or actual experience.  In simplest terms, zack, you've gotta know what you are talking about.  That takes "visible signs."

Prejudice generally has a very visible social group as its aim.  Blacks, gays, women, Hispanics, Muslims, even Christians in a non-Christian world.  Indeed, prejudice against a group without visible signs of itself could be a self-contradiction, as to simply be an object of prejudice would itself be a "visible sign"...or, that is to say, a mark of identification.

In fact, having some 'visible sign' is a condition precedent to prejudice.  A prejudice against no one or nothing is a non sequitur.

* Note: "Views" is the plural form of the noun.  To conjugate a verb, you there must therefore use the same form.  The plural expression of the verb "to be" is "are": Your views [are] that of a simpleton.  Just wanted you to realize.