Violence In The Third World

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... a43bfd5c89

The above Washington Post article, which lists violent attacks on houses of worship since about 2010, got me thinking about an interesting question concerning violence in what is typically classified as the third world. A vast majority of the attacks, some with fatalities larger than the recent shooting New Zealand, have occurred within Middle Eastern nations. This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers. The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums despite the much larger death toll. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

[The Guardians of the Rhine]

Because either we,

A. Don't know
B. Don't care

Well, at least our leaders.

The only third world genocide I actually know a decent amount about are the Rwandan Genocide and the Ethiopian Famine. I can't speak for others, but it's actually mostly A for me.

[Aureumterra]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/a-look-at-attacks-on-houses-of-worship-over-last-decade/2019/03/15/76ca17b2-46f5-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2fa43bfd5c89

The above Washington Post article, which lists violent attacks on houses of worship since about 2010, got me thinking about an interesting question concerning violence in what is typically classified as the third world. A vast majority of the attacks, some with fatalities larger than the recent shooting New Zealand, have occurred within Middle Eastern nations. This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers. The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

Because things like these are normal in places like Afghanistan. It’s sad, I know, but if the media covers every single incident in the third world in depth, they would have something new to cover every week that doesn’t relate to the vast majority of their viewers. The NZ shooting is extremely shocking, as NZ is considered one of the safest countries on Earth.

[The Underground Movement Union]

I think that the reason why the media doesn't carry out as many articles regarding terror attacks in the Third World as opposed to that of in Western or First World countries is because they don't happen as often in the West, and so when it does happen it's an absolute shock and easier to notice. In the Third World however, it happens far more frequently particularly in war torn nations or nations where there are more powerful terror cells.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

But is it ethically right for the media to put the deaths of those in the first world above those in the third world just because of shock value and relatability?

[The Guardians of the Rhine]

I think that the reason why the media doesn't carry out as many articles regarding terror attacks in the Third World as opposed to that of in Western or First World countries is because they don't happen as often in the West, and so when it does happen it's an absolute shock and easier to notice. In the Third World however, it happens far more frequently particularly in war torn nations or nations where there are more powerful terror cells.

Plus, don't forget countries like Chad, Afghanistan, Syria, or many other third world countries in an open period of civil war, especially if religious (as in Iraq).

[LiberNovusAmericae]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/a-look-at-attacks-on-houses-of-worship-over-last-decade/2019/03/15/76ca17b2-46f5-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2fa43bfd5c89

The above Washington Post article, which lists violent attacks on houses of worship since about 2010, got me thinking about an interesting question concerning violence in what is typically classified as the third world. A vast majority of the attacks, some with fatalities larger than the recent shooting New Zealand, have occurred within Middle Eastern nations. This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers. The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums despite the much larger death toll. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

There are parts of the third world where violence, torture, and death are the norm. It would be impractical to morn every injustice or mass murder that occurs in the world, as they commonly occur, and we in the west have our own problems.

[The Underground Movement Union]

I think that the reason why the media doesn't carry out as many articles regarding terror attacks in the Third World as opposed to that of in Western or First World countries is because they don't happen as often in the West, and so when it does happen it's an absolute shock and easier to notice. In the Third World however, it happens far more frequently particularly in war torn nations or nations where there are more powerful terror cells.

Plus, don't forget countries like Chad, Afghanistan, Syria, or many other third world countries in an open period of civil war, especially if religious (as in Iraq).

Yeah, that's generally what I'm saying; because they're war torn, they are objectively going to happen so often we cannot keep track of all of them.

[The Underground Movement Union]

But is it ethically right for the media to put the deaths of those in the first world above those in the third world just because of shock value and relatability?

I don't think it has much to do with relatability as much as it does with just how easy it is to pick them out. I do, however believe it is unethical for the media to just all jump on forcusing on isolated incidents in the First World and ignore that of the Third World simply because it is difficult. I appreciate articles such as the Washington Post for taking the time to show that this just doesn't happen in the West and this does indeed happen in the Third World and much more frequently than we would like to imagine. I just wish the media would do more to emphasize this point that this just isn't exclusive to the First World and happens much more than any of us would like to dream imagines, especially with today and how polarized we all are. I'd say it would help with the political divide a bit as well for it would emphasize that it's not just the far right extremists, or just islamists, or just far left extremists that are capable of violence, and that violence doesn't have an ideology.

It would also help emphasize just how horrific war really is and just how far spread radicalism really is today.

[Soviet Technocracy2]

The US probably has a hand in a lot of those deaths.

[Yusseria]

When you take a shit in the bathroom no one cares. When you take a shit in the kitchen people start to notice.

[Sapientia Et Bellum]

The US probably has a hand in a lot of those deaths.

No? These are direct attacks by individuals against houses of worship

[Salus Maior]

Well, for instance in Nigeria there is apparently an ongoing slaughter of Christians by an Islamic militant group in the past few weeks, and the death toll has been growing.

Of course nobody here knows about it.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/ ... haram.html

https://spectator.org/massacres-in-new- ... d-nigeria/

[Costa Fierro]

But is it ethically right for the media to put the deaths of those in the first world above those in the third world just because of shock value and relatability?

You'll notice that a lot of these places where these attacks happen are active warzones, or at least suffering from some sort of insurgency or internal stability. While the loss of life in places like Afghanistan or Iraq is tragic, we tend to frame it within the wider conflict and therefore don't see it as separate from that conflict.

Whereas New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and even the United States, terrorist attacks and especially high casualty attacks are almost unheard off, especially politically motivated ones. The attacks in France were significant for the scale at which they were committed, the United Kingdom, a country no stranger to domestic terrorism, suffered multiple attacks in a short space of time. Australia went through a prolonged siege, of course, New Zealand being safe and secure.

[Salus Maior]

But is it ethically right for the media to put the deaths of those in the first world above those in the third world just because of shock value and relatability?

You'll notice that a lot of these places where these attacks happen are active warzones, or at least suffering from some sort of insurgency or internal stability. While the loss of life in places like Afghanistan or Iraq is tragic, we tend to frame it within the wider conflict and therefore don't see it as separate from that conflict.

Whereas New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and even the United States, terrorist attacks and especially high casualty attacks are almost unheard off, especially politically motivated ones. The attacks in France were significant for the scale at which they were committed, the United Kingdom, a country no stranger to domestic terrorism, suffered multiple attacks in a short space of time. Australia went through a prolonged siege, of course, New Zealand being safe and secure.

Well, not so unheard of in France anymore.

How many attacks have they had at this point?

[Costa Fierro]

You'll notice that a lot of these places where these attacks happen are active warzones, or at least suffering from some sort of insurgency or internal stability. While the loss of life in places like Afghanistan or Iraq is tragic, we tend to frame it within the wider conflict and therefore don't see it as separate from that conflict.

Whereas New Zealand, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and even the United States, terrorist attacks and especially high casualty attacks are almost unheard off, especially politically motivated ones. The attacks in France were significant for the scale at which they were committed, the United Kingdom, a country no stranger to domestic terrorism, suffered multiple attacks in a short space of time. Australia went through a prolonged siege, of course, New Zealand being safe and secure.

Well, not so unheard of in France anymore.

How many attacks have they had at this point?

A few, but the scale of the Paris attacks was nothing like France had seen before.

[Digital Planets]

Well, not so unheard of in France anymore.

How many attacks have they had at this point?

A few, but the scale of the Paris attacks was nothing like France had seen before.

They need another revolution so we can finally reset the clock.

[Salus Maior]

A few, but the scale of the Paris attacks was nothing like France had seen before.

They need another revolution so we can finally reset the clock.

It's not that simple this time.

Really, it's the fact that France has let a lot of people into its country that it probably shouldn't have, and now there's a culture clash that's left bodies on the floor.

[Digital Planets]

They need another revolution so we can finally reset the clock.

It's not that simple this time.

Really, it's the fact that France has let a lot of people into its country that it probably shouldn't have, and now there's a culture clash that's left bodies on the floor.

Which is probably why Islam with be made the new state religion, because it's France and it'll be hilarious.

Maybe the Pope will call a crusade towards Paris?

[Valentine Z]

As most said here, it's unfortunately because of the frequencies that they happen in.

If you told someone that a bomb just exploded in Syria, they will take it as "C'est la vie" and probably move on after giving it a read.

If you told someone that Paris got attacked, it gets more attention since these types of terrorist attacks has never happened in Paris before (or very rarely).

All the events of violence and deaths are tragic, yes, but when it happens in a war-torn country, it became background noise; when it happens in a relatively more stable country, it gets all the attention since it's a rare occasion.

[Digital Planets]

As most said here, it's unfortunately because of the frequencies that they happen in.

If you told someone that a bomb just exploded in Syria, they will take it as "C'est la vie" and probably move on after giving it a read.

If you told someone that Paris got attacked, it gets more attention since these types of terrorist attacks has never happened in Paris before (or very rarely).

All the events of violence and deaths are tragic, yes, but when it happens in a war-torn country, it became background noise; when it happens in a relatively more stable country, it gets all the attention since it's a rare occasion.

You say Paris, but all I hear is باريس.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/a-look-at-attacks-on-houses-of-worship-over-last-decade/2019/03/15/76ca17b2-46f5-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2fa43bfd5c89

The above Washington Post article, which lists violent attacks on houses of worship since about 2010, got me thinking about an interesting question concerning violence in what is typically classified as the third world. A vast majority of the attacks, some with fatalities larger than the recent shooting New Zealand, have occurred within Middle Eastern nations. This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers. The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums despite the much larger death toll. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

Not sure where you get your news but I hear about the terror attacks in the middle East every day. Mainstream media is shit. CNN/Fox news are useless and even the more moderate stations are still only running stories that are profitable. Hell last year Pakistan's Deputy Chairman of the Senate was nearly killed in an attack. Could you imagine if the second in line for the US presidential succession was nearly killed? Pakistan has over 200 million people, is a US non-nato Ally, and is a nuclear power. No major news sources gave it a second mention. The point is that for every major terror attack in the west there are a dozen in the middle East. Hundreds sometimes die purely for adherence to the other version of Islam.

[Aejus]

Islam. That's why.
You're ignoring the elephant in the room strapped with IED's and brandishing an AK and an evil agenda.
They do this to themselves constantly, it's not news in most other countries that matter.

[-Ocelot-]

This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers.

Sunni vs Shiite conflicts have been around since... forever. The rise of neo-fascism all across the west is a new phenomenon.

The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums despite the much larger death toll. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations.. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

Afghanistan is not a "western" country, NZ is.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/a-look-at-attacks-on-houses-of-worship-over-last-decade/2019/03/15/76ca17b2-46f5-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2fa43bfd5c89

The above Washington Post article, which lists violent attacks on houses of worship since about 2010, got me thinking about an interesting question concerning violence in what is typically classified as the third world. A vast majority of the attacks, some with fatalities larger than the recent shooting New Zealand, have occurred within Middle Eastern nations. This includes an attack in August of 2017 where a gunman/suicide bomber stormed a Shiite Mosque in the Heret region of Afghanistan resulting in the deaths of around 90 worshippers. The attack was carried out during evening prayers. The difference is that the media in the west did very little cover this event through its more popular mediums despite the much larger death toll. The story is the same for countless other attacks that occur in third world nations. So the question I pose to NSG is why do we, as in the west, not cover (or mourn) mass killings in the third world to the same degree as we do in the first world and should we cover/mourn mass killings in the third world more or less?

Because that’s the normal level of violence for human communities. What the West experiences is a product of a number of factors, with no small part played by our legal, ideological and interpersonal cultures.

People don’t want to recognise the state of the rest of the world because it challenges the notion that a zero level of violence is attainable.