Last Friday, 15 March,2019, an Australian man named Brenton Tarrant opened fired in 2 mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing almost 50 people in total. He chose this day as in Islam “Jumme ki Namaaz’ is very important and streamed it live on Facebook the mass shooting, replica of ‘First Person Shooting Games’.

The World was shocked by this news, especially because it was done in New Zealand, in one of the most peaceful countries of the world,having the most convenient immigrant policies as well. Most of the people who died came from different countries like Palestine, Syria, as a refugee but had to face terrorism there too.

Global news media was constantly updating about the news, but what surprised the most was the fact, major media didn’t even considered it as a terrorist attack. It headlined ‘White Supremacist attacks’ or ‘Mass shooting by gunman’.

Gunman? A person who shoots 50 people ruthlessly is a gunman and not a terrorist. How? If this attack would have been in their country, it would be termed as terrorist attack, but for other country it’s a gunman attack. Who is a gunman? Any person who carries or uses guns is a gunman, but who kills innocent people is a terrorist.

In 2017, when Stephen Paddock opened fired on a concert full of people in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 people, he too was termed as gunman.

A lot has been said and debated upon. If a brown man belonging to the Arabian or asian subcontinent kills people, he is known as a terrorist and if the same thing is done by a white man he is addressed as a "Gunman". It’s really insensitive because terrorism don’t have any race or religion, a terrorist is a terrorist. Though after people reacted that Christchurch shooter is a terrorist nota mere gunman, they changed the headline.

But question will still be there:
When are we going to realize the definition of terrorism, world is being threatened day by day, and it’s needs to stop, not being divided.



Profile of Sj
Sj   •  2y  •  Reply
Totally understandable and agreeable