TERRORISM: Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly

In the response to riots, protesting against the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist - among other things - members of the Christian Community of Onitsha - Nigeria - responded with their own fresh riot. Early reports have indicted several Mosques being targeted as well as several Muslim's being beaten to death. As of yet their have been no confirmed response to the amount of deaths, however as the posting of this the riots are still on going.



Tit for Tat?
An eye for an Eye?

Like it or not, if Muslim's can't riot in protest of the cartoons - some of which have turned deadly - surely, Christian’s can’t do the same? These riots - in response to the deaths of 18 Christian’s in Maiduguri - can not be justified unless the Muslim riots themselves can be. It shows riots, terrorism, murder isn’t stuck to one Religion - to one group of society - it shows it isn’t just Muslim’s who hold this mob mentality and will there be international condemnation for these actions also?

Like it or not, it isn’t just Muslim’s who result to violence to solve problems.

About time some Christians got some balls an riot back at those twat muslims TBH show em we aint a walk over and we mean buisness too.

Although i dont agree to any riots at all but well the Muslims started it so we will finish it, i guess its an eye for an eye thing.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by blobby]

Perhaps we in the west have something to learn from these guys...afterall they've been having to deal with the B.S. for centuries.

This kind of supports that the riots are less of a religion thing and more of a regional thing.

Muslim-Canadians are not rioting. Cartoon protest hits Canada.

But Nigerian Muslims and Christians are. According to the CIA fact book 50% of Nigerians are Muslim and 40% are Christian.

So why are Nigerians so violent? Could it be that 60% of Nigerians live below the poverty line? Poverty is often linked with violence and crime.
Or is this just "normal" for Nigerians? The country has been facing communal violence between Christians and Muslims since 1999.

BBC Analysis: Behind Nigeria's violence

Economic differences

At their root, these differences are not cultural or religious. They are economic.

The tragedy of Nigeria is that over the past few decades its population has grown rapidly, but despite the country's vast oil wealth, the economy has failed to keep pace.

Policeman and Muslims in Jos, 2001
Reports of clashes in one part of Nigeria can lead to reprisals elsewhere
Nigerians have been getting poorer by the year.

And along with this, the failure of the state to provide adequate education for the vast majority of the population, has produced a frustrated and angry underclass of largely

The only people who are likely to suffer and will suffer in all this are the innocents in these things. Innocent Danes, innocent Nigerians, innocent ..... fill in the blank.

The usual crappy deal.

I've been saying it. I've been saying all this while it's a socio-economic thing. How many times have I said it's not a religious thing, I can't recall. Now I wonder what the nay-sayers are gonna say about this.

Edit: to add link to this thread where I've mentioned it in detail, specifically this post.

[edit on 21-2-2006 by Beachcoma]

A person can call themselves a vegetarian and periodically visit McDonald's for a Big Mac. But in the end, they're not really a vegetarian. Similarly, some of the primary tenets of Christianity are tolerance, refraining from judgiung others and non-violence. No matter what. So, anyone professing to be Christian and taking part in violence against others is not. Similarly, well-known Christian leaders who call for the assassination of political leaders may call themselves Christians but, in fact, are not.

Personally, I think little of this is, at its core, religious. I feel it's dispossessed, impoverished, bored people looking for a purpose in what they perceive to be otherwise meaningless lives.

I work with two Nigerians, one Xtian, one muslim. They've always maintained that there's very little in the way of conflict between the two and they live alongside each other, often intermarry etc. There are regions of the country that are predominately Xtian or muslim though. You also have to remember that it is a huge country so it would be like assuming that because some churches have been torched in the south of the US that this is going on throughout the united states.

So where are the moderate Christians rioting against these fanatics?

And where are the nuts that come out of the woodwork advocating genocide when it's Christians rioting?

Originally posted by Odium
Tit for Tat?
An eye for an Eye?

You answer your own question.

Originally posted by Odium
These riots – in response to the deaths of 18 Christian’s in Maiduguri

I find it rather amusing that anyone would expect anything different. Do people think that because some people are Christian, they will not resort to violence as a form of self defense? Make no bones about it, this is retaliation. This is self-defense. This is a bunch of people who were just terrorized the day before and have now turned on those they perceive as responsible for the deaths and destruction.

Lest you folks didn’t read or skipped over parts of the article, try to absorb and digest this for a moment:

Originally posted by Odium
Like it or not, if Muslim's can't riot in protest of the cartoons - some of which have turned deadly - surely, Christian’s can’t do the same? These riots - in response to the deaths of 18 Christian’s in Maiduguri - can not be justified unless the Muslim riots themselves can be.

That would be true, were it the case. Instead, the Muslim rioters, nay, murderers/arsonists acted violently and viciously in the face of a non-violent stimulus (the cartoons). The Christian murderers and arsonists (for that’s about what they are too) acted violently and viciously in the face of a VIOLENT stimulus (the Muslim “rioters”).

The Christians aren’t protesting cartoons, they are protesting being killed and having their churches burned. How would most of you protest that? I think I can justify their actions a lot easier than I can justify killing over a cartoon.

I don’t think anyone would believe that only Muslims have a “mob mentality.” One would only have to point out the Christians of the Third Reich to negate the idea.

And certainly, we all know Muslims aren’t the only ones who use violence. There are also neo-Nazis, Klansmen, EMF, PETA, and tons of other completely intolerant groups who do as well, as does every military on the planet.

I did notice, Odium, that you euphemistically suggested that the Christians and Muslims both were just responding to a “problem.” I’d say getting killed is more than a problem, and I’d say that the one act is eminently more justifiable than the other.

Here is a good analogy from America’s not-too-distant past for you folks who can’t see the difference.

The cartoons = Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (inasmuch as one might consider them a form of non-violent protest)

The Muslim “rioters” = The white animals who turned fire hoses, batons, and police dogs, and the KKK on Dr. King’s non-violent protestors

The Christian “rioters” = The Black Panthers or Malcolm X’s Nation of Islam followers, who used violent methods to protest the violent treatment they’d received at the hands of whites

Do I like it? No.

Can I understand it? Yes

Anyone care to rethink what they’ve posted?

Odium, I haven't read the other responsees as I just want to say that you should look at a whole story before you find something that seems to make reality fit your desire.

The Christians there have been being killed, including children, and their churches burned.
Of course they are angry.

It is obvious that you are trying to say, "Hey, look, these Christians are doing the same thing!", as if they are mad about cartoons, or something.

Do you realize there is no eye-for-an-eye or tit-for-tat in this? Do you realize you are attempting to slant people's opinion away from the truth and toward a personal agenda? This is a pure shame.

This was a shallow atttempt. I certainly doubt anyone falls for it.

Good on the Christians!!

Hmm, not the "who started it first" game again. This conflict in Nigeria has been going on for some time, and both perpetuate the violence. To say it's one group or another's fault reflects ignorance towards the history of this conflict.

The world is going to Hell fast.

Edit: Censor circumvention.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by intrepid]

So the best way to show people burning down churches and killing people is wrong, is to burn down churches and kill people?

I'm sorry, that doesn't sound at all sensible.

All those saying "Good for the Christians!", remember this when it swings back around, as it obviously will. Folks on the other side are saying the same thing! Your mutual enthusiasm for this crap dooms us all!

Originally posted by xmotex
So where are the moderate Christians rioting against these fanatics?

And where are the nuts that come out of the woodwork advocating genocide when it's Christians rioting?

This was a little more justified than the riots over the cartoons.
This was payback for a specific attack and was against the people who did the attacking.

The muslims killed Nigerian Christians because a newspaper in Denmark printed cartoons of Muhammed about four months ago. The Nigerian Christians had nothing to do with it so actions against them were not justified.

The Christians killed Nigerian muslims because Nigerian muslims killed dozens of Nigerian Christians and burned down down their churches just the previous day so that reprisal was justified.

So attacking Muslim's in Onitsha, for the actions of Muslim's in Maiduguri is fine? Do people not see the logic used by you, is the same used by the terrorists?

If an American Soldier kills an Iraqi, all American's are guilty.
If an Israeli Soldier Kills a Palestinian, all Palestinian's are guilty.

It is the same logic, the IRA used, many Government's of the World use and many terrorist groups use.

If a Muslim kills someone, it is fine to punish that single person but not every Muslim. It is the same as killing someone in the U.K. because someone else commits murder. There is no logic there.

Guys, this is ATSNN. Please don't bypass the censors and be mindful of your choice of words. Thanks.

Originally posted by Odium
So attacking Muslim's in Onitsha, for the actions of Muslim's in Maiduguri is fine? Do people not see the logic used by you, is the same used by the terrorists?

Odium, you have a valid point here, and it is well made. I think the bulk of what TC (if you don't mind me speaking for you for a sec.) and I are arguing here is your initial characterization that these Christian riots were the same as those of the Muslims. I do not agree, and it appears, neither does TC.

I suspect we disagree with you on the same grounds. Not because one or both of us might be Christian; but instead, because one or both of us find it unacceptable to kill people and burn down churches over political drawings. Likewise, retaliation halfway across the country is unpalatable; however, it is somewhat less so.

I have an easier time justifying the actions of the second party than I do the first. Do I think either party is correct? At this point, no; however, to those who intrinsically deny the sometime necessity of violence, I cannot agree with you.

While some have rightfully pointed out the centuries-old conflicts that have alternately simmered and boiled between Christians and Muslims in that area, there must be some repercussions for the actions of the original rioters. Otherwise, we have then given tacit approval to anarchy.

Since I doubt that the local coppers are going to round up the offenders, the citizenry is left to mete out its own judgments. Does that sometimes mean that innocents may have to pay the price for the actions of the violators? Well, that sounds suspiciously close to what we call terrorism, and I don’t want to endorse it. At the same time, so are the actions of the original mob. It is a tough call, and I’m glad I don’t have to make it, but I am also glad I can recognize the difference—albeit possibly slight—between killing over newsprint and killing over murder.

When I read the headline for this thread, I shuddered - thinking that the worst has happened. But then the truth came out, and that right quick.

Mods, don't you think the title to this thread should be changed to reflect the truth?