We are truly back to business as usual, where the reaction to an event becomes more of a concern for the media than the event itself.
First, of course, we’ve had the always dependable “Washington Post” pointing out that the “far right” is angry at the Islamist terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, which targeted Christians (or, as Hillary, Obama and Co had it, “Easter worshipers”) in their churches. Memo to Bezos’s fish wrapper: if being angry about Christians being murdered somehow makes one “far right”, then consider me a Polish Nazi.
Now come the inevitable stories about the backlash:
Mobs of Christian men in Sri Lanka have been threatening and beating Muslims, dozens of residents said. “They even beat my kids," said a Pakistani refugee who has lived in Sri Lanka for 2 years. https://t.co/AO5sNCgvs5
— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 25, 2019
Sri Lanka’s Muslims fear retaliation after Easter attacks on Christians https://t.co/KCEDANTkrp
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 24, 2019
Just so we are clear – taking random revenge or persecuting whole groups for actions of a few of their members is never OK. It’s not only unjust, it’s also counter-productive as it perpetuates the cycle of violence and can radicalise its innocent victims.
But the mainstream media once again is giving the impression that the responses to the terrorist outrages are more of a worry and a problem than the initial act of extremism and violence.
The NYT at least gives a more comprehensive background to events, when over the past few years radical Buddhists (the dominant religion in Sri Lanka) have been instigating violence against both the local Christians and the local Muslims, with both minorities united in their persecution. Trust the jihadis to repay the Christian friendship and support with blood. But that’s how the extremists of every kind, whether Muslim or fascist or for that matter Buddhist, operate – by stoking the fires towards the ultimate goal of a bloody civil/racial/religious war.