Next to burnt corpses a Christian states "we are very happy this thing is happening"

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
ONITSHA, Nigeria (Reuters) -- Christian youths burned the corpses of Muslims on Thursday on the streets of Onitsha in southeastern Nigeria, the city worst hit by religious riots that have killed at least 146 people across the country in five days.

Christian mobs, seeking revenge for the killings of Christians in the north, attacked Muslims with cutlasses, destroyed their houses and torched mosques in two days of violence in Onitsha, where at least 93 people have died.

"We are very happy that this thing is happening so that the north will learn their lesson," said Anthony Umai, a motorcycle taxi rider, standing close to where Christian youths had piled up the corpses of 10 Muslims and were burning them.

Dozens more corpses had been thrown into the back of pick-up trucks by security services overnight, residents said.

Uncertainty over the political future is aggravating regional, ethnic and religious rivalries in Africa's most populous nation. Militants in the oil-producing south have waged a three-month campaign of attacks and kidnappings against the oil industry, which has cut exports and driven up world prices.

There was no fighting in Onitsha on Thursday morning but Emeka Umeh, of human rights group the Civil Liberties Organization, called it "the peace of the graveyard".

Some corpses were still lying on the streets and hundreds of Muslim men, women and children fled the city crammed into open-top trucks for fear of more killings. Thousands more were hiding in army barracks and police stations.

Umeh said most of the 85 bodies his group counted were Hausa, but some Ibo were killed too. The Hausa are the main ethnic group in northern Nigeria and most are Muslim, while the Ibo are dominant in the southeast and almost all are Christian.

Nigeria's 140 million people are divided about equally between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south, but sizeable religious minorities live in both regions.

Elections are due in 2007 and many Nigerians believe President Olusegun Obasanjo will try to stay on after eight years in power. The prospect angers those who feel the time has come for their ethnic or regional group to get the top job.

Also at stake in 2007 are the positions of many of the 36 powerful state governors. In some states, rivalries for those jobs are further raising tensions.

Thousands of people have been killed in religious violence in Africa's top oil exporter since the restoration of democracy in 1999. Killings in one part of the country often spark reprisals elsewhere.

The triggers for riots that killed 46 people, mostly Christians, in the northern cities of Maiduguri, Bauchi and Katsina at the weekend were different, but religious and secular leaders have linked them to political tensions.

In Maiduguri and Bauchi, the international furor over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad and an alleged blasphemy started the trouble. In Katsina it was a constitutional review that many see as an attempt to keep Obasanjo in power.

Muslim rioters torched several churches and attacked Christians with guns, machetes and sticks.

News of the murders set off the bloodletting in Onitsha, and tit-for-tat violence spread on Wednesday to Enugu, another southeastern city, where seven people were killed.

The constitution bars Obasanjo, a Christian from the southwest, from seeking a third term in 2007 and he says he will uphold the charter. But he has declined to comment on a powerful movement to amend the constitution to allow him to stay.

Maiduguri and Katsina are both hosting public hearings on constitutional reform this week which many Nigerians believe are geared towards furthering the so-called third term agenda.

In the north, most people feel the presidency should go to a Muslim northerner in 2007.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/02/23/nigeria.riots.reut/index.html

"These things belong to Igbos," said Sunday Tagbo, 25, referring to the dominant ethnic group of this region, more commonly known worldwide as Ibos, as he helped himself to sooty car parts left behind by fleeing merchants. "This is Igbo land. No more Muslims can live here."

City and state officials urged calm, and a semblance of the ordinary returned to the city's streets on Thursday, with markets open and heavy traffic on the streets. But the damage of three days of carnage was evident. At the central mosque, rioters burned the building and hacked down trees surrounding it.

Someone wrote in chalk on a charred wall, "Jesus is Lord." The message went on to warn that "from today" there would be no more Muhammad. Thousands of Muslim residents fled the city, some on foot over the bridge leading to Delta State, taking refuge in neighboring cities. Thousands more huddled in police and army barracks in Onitsha and surrounding towns.

"What has become of us?" lamented the Rev. Joseph Ezeugo, pastor of Immaculate Heart Parish. "This cannot be Nigeria today. We have been living side by side with our Muslim brothers for so long. Why should a cartoon in Denmark bring us to civil war?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/international/africa/24nigeria.html?hp&ex=1140757200&en=f60d9a146bd376dc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Those savage muslims, how dare they pollute the streets with their charred corpses!
 
It's a total mess on most of that continent. I really don't know how people survived over there for all these years.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Those savage muslims, how dare they pollute the streets with their charred corpses![/quote]
You really have a penchant for trying to defend muslims...Even despite the fact that this was seemingly started by muslims killing christians.

That being said, in all honesty, I firmly believe we're going to see a muslim retaliation against christians for this (whether it happens in Nigeria or Pakistan is beyond me).
 
AM23, I can not and will not defend the actions of the Christians. However, it was retaliatory. The Muslims first attacked Christians, as a matter of fact I am pretty sure I posted that story. I can not and will not justify the violence but it is clear who started the violence. It was "savage Muslims".
 
To kakomu and krazy, many countries (such as nigeria) have histories of religious conflict, and it goes both ways, and the article states that about nigera.

Though you two responded in the way I had hoped. Should we really be minimizing it because muslims rioted first? For example, an Iraqi terrorist organization strung up burnt mercenary corpses on a bridge, after Iraq was invaded, but yet that's the result of muslim barbarity. Hamas, and similar organizations, kill innocent civilians after being occupied for decades and having their civilians killed, yet it's a mark of muslim barbarity. When christians kill innocent civilians after being killed, it's because muslims started it.

Though, in these particular riots, it seems that muslims gathered due to either political (not letting obasanjo stay in power) or religious (mohammed cartoons) reasons, which eventually led to killing and attacks on christians and symbols. The riot in response seemed to be purely to target and kill muslims and symbols of islam. That being said, my whole point is to point out the similarity, and the differing way we view similar events depending on who's playing the central role. When familiar groups commit violence we often do denounce them, but at the same time look for real reasons as to why they may have committed such acts, we don't do the same to groups we don't identify with.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, in these particular riots, it seems that muslims gathered due to either political (not letting obasanjo stay in power) or religious (mohammed cartoons) reasons, which eventually led to killing and attacks on christians and symbols. The riot in response seemed to be purely to target and kill muslims and symbols of islam. That being said, my whole point is to point out the similarity, and the differing way we view similar events depending on who's playing the central role. When familiar groups commit violence we often do denounce them, but at the same time look for real reasons as to why they may have committed such acts, we don't do the same to groups we don't identify with.[/quote]
Are you saying that there is a right reason to kill and there's a wrong reason?
 
The only point of contention I had with your post AM23, was that you appeared to be trying to blame the Christians for violence. It was initiated by the Muslims and yes it was savage. Barbaric behavior on one side does not justify it on the other. The only complaint I had was with you trying to make the Muslims actions appear less barbaric.

I justify neither, you seem to be a bit defensive of one side, when in fact if one was to justify any actions it would certainly be the retaliation (once again I do not justify either but if one was more justified than the other then clearly it was the retaliation).
 
[quote name='kakomu']Are you saying that there is a right reason to kill and there's a wrong reason?[/quote]

I'm saying that there are often reasons for such things. That's not a value judgement, it's just saying they didn't wake up one day and think "hey, lets go kill some people". Even if that's the end result of the reasoning, seeing dead people isn't the logic behind it.

The only point of contention I had with your post AM23, was that you appeared to be trying to blame the Christians for violence. It was initiated by the Muslims and yes it was savage. Barbaric behavior on one side does not justify it on the other. The only complaint I had was with you trying to make the Muslims actions appear less barbaric.

No, the actions appear about the same, I was just pointing out that one was organized for non-violent reasons and became violent, while the other (it appears anyway, the article may have missed important details) gathered to riot and commit violence. There's no mention of a pro-christian rally, defend christians rally, or even an initially non-violent anti-muslim rally. For me that balances out the difference between what lead to the violence. One side rallied (neutral) and became violent (unintended, +1), and, in retaliation (-1) the other side rallied for violence (intentional, +2). At least that's how the media presents it.

I justify neither, you seem to be a bit defensive of one side, when in fact if one was to justify any actions it would certainly be the retaliation (once again I do not justify either but if one was more justified than the other then clearly it was the retaliation).

That's fine if that line of reasoning was adopted, but I don't think it is. Israel and palestine is a perfect example. People are much quicker to sympathize with the side that they feel is closer to them.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']To kakomu and krazy, many countries (such as nigeria) have histories of religious conflict, and it goes both ways, and the article states that about nigera.

Though you two responded in the way I had hoped. Should we really be minimizing it because muslims rioted first? For example, an Iraqi terrorist organization strung up burnt mercenary corpses on a bridge, after Iraq was invaded, but yet that's the result of muslim barbarity. Hamas, and similar organizations, kill innocent civilians after being occupied for decades and having their civilians killed, yet it's a mark of muslim barbarity. When christians kill innocent civilians after being killed, it's because muslims started it.

Though, in these particular riots, it seems that muslims gathered due to either political (not letting obasanjo stay in power) or religious (mohammed cartoons) reasons, which eventually led to killing and attacks on christians and symbols. The riot in response seemed to be purely to target and kill muslims and symbols of islam. That being said, my whole point is to point out the similarity, and the differing way we view similar events depending on who's playing the central role. When familiar groups commit violence we often do denounce them, but at the same time look for real reasons as to why they may have committed such acts, we don't do the same to groups we don't identify with.[/QUOTE]

Does iwhether it was the cause or the effect matter so much? Also I'm glad you can attest to the reactions of every person everywhere as though they were you own feelings. It's sure some may react differently to concepts they undrstand better, but killing and mayhem is the basic concept here isn't it? Religion is essentially the excuse for it. My reaction is that both groups of rioters are idiots harming others and by doing this they are actually violating their true religious ideals. I actually understand Christianity better, because I'm technically a christian, but I still think that way. Also alot of this is based around the cultural, politictal, and religious atmosphere of Nigeria, something I've sure many of us don't really identify with or even understand completely. The only thing I think you really point out is your reaction and feelings on all this.

People of many religions have killed over religious conflicts just as you say but where are you article postings and slanted topic titles for those other incidents. Granted other redicilous ego-maniac Vs. board memebers may beat you to the punch, but you and others rip into them soon after and for good reason. Yet you do the same simply under the banner of a different color so to speak and all the sudden no one is supposed to question your motives behind it and think you are taking an impartial reaction to this news? Anyway you look at things, essentially people are targeting and killing each other over their so called "religious ideals", I mean they are all pretty much doing the same things and that's the reality right? So I guess fail to see how one side is more justified or right than the other here, no matter who I understand or identify with more. My point is not everyone always trys to "rationalize" everything away with whomeve they can understand better, but it seems you did just that in your OP.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Does iwhether it was the cause or the effect matter so much? Also I'm glad you can attest to the reactions of every person everywhere as though they were you own feelings. It's sure some may react differently to concepts they undrstand better, but killing and mayhem is the basic concept here isn't it? Religion is essentially the excuse for it. My reaction is that both groups of rioters are idiots harming others and by doing this they are actually violating their true religious ideals. I actually understand Christianity better, because I'm technically a christian, but I still think that way. Also alot of this is based around the cultural, politictal, and religious atmosphere of Nigeria, something I've sure many of us don't really identify with or even understand completely. The only thing I think you really point out is your reaction and feelings on all this. [/quote]

You agree while simultaneously disagree. My whole point is that under similar circumstances the differences between christians and muslims violent reactions will be minimal, it's just the situations they exist in are dramatically different throughout much of the world, for various and complex reasons.

And I'm not sure what you are contesting, are you disagreeing that it's easier to see the reasoning behind groups you more closely identify with? Do you think that people are just as likely to sympathize with or understand (even if they simultaneously denounce the actions, understand the logic) those they view as similar and those they view as dramatically different, as in the case of christians and muslims?

Though the only opinion I've stated on this is that people are going to react differently because it's christians committing the violence.

People of many religions have killed over religious conflicts just as you say but where are you article postings and slanted topic titles for those other incidents. Granted other redicilous ego-maniac Vs. board memebers may beat you to the punch, but you and others rip into them soon after and for good reason. Yet you do the same simply under the banner of a different color so to speak and all the sudden no one is supposed to question your motives behind it and think you are taking an impartial reaction to this news?

Do you think I honestly agree with the way I worded it? I worded the title and the comment the way I did to mimic and mock the way people often react to violence committed by muslims.

Anyway you look at things, essentially people are targeting and killing each other over their so called "religious ideals", I mean they are all pretty much doing the same things and that's the reality right? So I guess fail to see how one side is more justified or right than the other here, no matter who I understand or identify with more. My point is not everyone always trys to "rationalize" everything away with whomeve they can understand better, but it seems you did just that in your OP.

Did you miss how I stated that they're essentially the same in the end? And that I stated that that was my point?

And I'm not saying they're intentionally rationalizing, it just is easier to understand when there is a basic similarity you recognize.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
And I'm not sure what you are contesting, are you disagreeing that it's easier to see the reasoning behind groups you more closely identify with? Do you think that people are just as likely to sympathize with or understand (even if they simultaneously denounce the actions, understand the logic) those they view as similar and those they view as dramatically different, as in the case of christians and muslims?[/QUOTE]

I see the rational behind the theory, but I'm contesting that it is the reaction of every person to empathize or understand some other people's action better just because they have a single common thread, such as a certain general religion (even though not all muslim and christian beliefs are even the same). For this situation I don't empathize with or even understand anyone commiting violence because I don't live in the same political and cultural climate as anyone involved.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Though the only opinion I've stated on this is that people are going to react differently because it's christians committing the violence. [/quote]

That is my real issue here I suppose, simple association by religion means nothing in this situation, it doesn't change my reaction to the situation at all nor does it even help me to understand their actions. IMO there's nothing to view as "similar and drastically different". The motive for both sides' actions and turn towards violence seems to be the same (destroy the religion/people they think have wronged them, etc) a logic with I'm not at all familar with nor do I at all agree with. Like I said earlier, I feel in a situaiton such as the riots in Nigeria, religion is often the excuse for murder, mayhem and revenge, so one party being of a certain religion (whether I'm of or have knowledge of said relgion) doesn't change my reaction to their idiocy in the least.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Do you think I honestly agree with the way I worded it? I worded the title and the comment the way I did to mimic and mock the way people often react to violence committed by muslims. [/quote]

Well sorry to blindly assume, but you didn't offer much to the conrary in your OP and it is the VS board. Plus my sarcasm detector isn't wired for internet access....

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Did you miss how I stated that they're essentially the same in the end? And that I stated that that was my point?[/quote]

I saw this: "Though, in these particular riots, it seems that muslims gathered due to either political (not letting obasanjo stay in power) or religious (mohammed cartoons) reasons, which eventually led to killing and attacks on christians and symbols. The riot in response seemed to be purely to target and kill muslims and symbols of islam."

And this (which seemed oddly like a D&D portrayal of the prceedings): "No, the actions appear about the same, I was just pointing out that one was organized for non-violent reasons and became violent, while the other (it appears anyway, the article may have missed important details) gathered to riot and commit violence. There's no mention of a pro-christian rally, defend christians rally, or even an initially non-violent anti-muslim rally. For me that balances out the difference between what lead to the violence. One side rallied (neutral) and became violent (unintended, +1), and, in retaliation (-1) the other side rallied for violence (intentional, +2). At least that's how the media presents it."

Call me nuts, but it looks like you are actually trying to point out differences there. To me it looked like you were tip-toeing around, while at the same time wanting to call the riots that occured in retalition (the only ones you posted an article about) slightly worse. Though to your credit you do say "the actions appear about the same", though I'm not here to change your social view of things either...
 
add another layer to the already ridiculously complex situation in Africa...

It's a total mess on most of that continent. I really don't know how people survived over there for all these years.

the place has been fucked for a variety of reasons, mostly dealing with colonization and the trials and tribulations of living up to their independance. Corruption seriously inhibits just about any progress over there and seemingly endless cycle of violence is the result. before anyone says this particular event is purely a religous issue, well, you're wrong.
 
Here's a decent article on the background of the violence in Nigeria: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1630089.stm

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I see the rational behind the theory, but I'm contesting that it is the reaction of every person to empathize or understand some other people's action better just because they have a single common thread, such as a certain general religion (even though not all muslim and christian beliefs are even the same). For this situation I don't empathize with or even understand anyone commiting violence because I don't live in the same political and cultural climate as anyone involved. [/quote]

Of course there are differences, degrees etc. but, in the end, given everything else being equal, people are more likely to identify with what is similar than what is different.


Well sorry to blindly assume, but you didn't offer much to the conrary in your OP and it is the VS board. Plus my sarcasm detector isn't wired for internet access....

Well, I did intentionally leave open the possibility of someone believing I meant it. Though I wanted a little more screaming and ranting on your part.



I saw this: "Though, in these particular riots, it seems that muslims gathered due to either political (not letting obasanjo stay in power) or religious (mohammed cartoons) reasons, which eventually led to killing and attacks on christians and symbols. The riot in response seemed to be purely to target and kill muslims and symbols of islam."

And this (which seemed oddly like a D&D portrayal of the prceedings): "No, the actions appear about the same, I was just pointing out that one was organized for non-violent reasons and became violent, while the other (it appears anyway, the article may have missed important details) gathered to riot and commit violence. There's no mention of a pro-christian rally, defend christians rally, or even an initially non-violent anti-muslim rally. For me that balances out the difference between what lead to the violence. One side rallied (neutral) and became violent (unintended, +1), and, in retaliation (-1) the other side rallied for violence (intentional, +2). At least that's how the media presents it."

Call me nuts, but it looks like you are actually trying to point out differences there. To me it looked like you were tip-toeing around, while at the same time wanting to call the riots that occured in retalition (the only ones you posted an article about) slightly worse. Though to your credit you do say "the actions appear about the same", though I'm not here to change your social view of things either...

There are differences here but, in the end, the result is basically the same. The same way I viewed this incident would be switched around if other incidents of violence were being discussed.
 
bread's done
Back
Top