« homeland security watchdogs | Main | we built this city »

a "little incident of some rioting"

"All we want to do now is to give Miss World 2002 the publicity it deserves," a spokeswoman told the UK's Press Association.

Regardless of what happened in Nigeria, I don't think that beauty contests deserve any publicity at all to begin with. But that's another rant for another time.

About 12,000 people have so far been made homeless and the number of injured in hospital is between 1,100 and 1,200, he said.

At least 22 churches and 8 mosques were destroyed in the rampage, Shehu Sani of the Kaduna-based Civil Rights Congress told AP. Ten hotels were also badly damaged, said Sani, whose group estimated that "well over 200 people" had been killed.

This, over a few words printed in a newspaper. The people of the Religion of Peace tm took such offense to it that they though it necessary to kill, plunder and burn.

Yes, I know. Christians were involved, too. I hardly think this was a turn your other cheek situation, though. Your people, your churches, your homes are being attacked, I do believe your first instinct is to attack right back. I know mine is.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm sure the coordinators of the pageant are kicking themselves for wanting to hold the contest - which promotes scantily clad women showing off their bodies and faces - in a country which is 50% Muslim. During Ramadan. Can you say bad idea?

Tension was high even before the newspaper article that sparked the riots came out. I imagine that the rioters, murderers and arsonists were just waiting for a reason to start a ruckus. I'm willing to bet that something like this would have happened regardless of someone suggesting Muhammed loved women.

Organisers said they hoped to put the "ugly incident" behind them by ensuring that when the contest was held on December 7 it would bear all the hallmarks of everything Nigerian.

Ugly incident? Is that what 200 dead people is called now? An ugly incident? Will those hallmarks of everything Nigerian now include 12,000 homeless people and 100 ruined churches and mosques? Would it kill these people to say something intelligent like Due to the tragedy that occurred in Nigeria, we are going to forego the contest this year?

Gary Murray-Bruce, organizer of the Miss World Nigeria organization: What happened is a big shame because the international press have highlighted a little incident of some rioting.." [emphasis added]

Little incident of some rioting? No wonder the Miss World organizers haven't cancelled the contest. Those 200 dead people? It was nothing! Just a little skirmish, no need to over react.

Ben Maray, another Nigerian organizer of the event, said "There's an international conspiracy just to show that an African country like Nigeria cannot host this thing. I think Nigerians should be really angry with the international press.."

I guess Nigeria proved them wrong, huh? I think Nigerians should be angry with the Muslims who spread their religion of peace through the night, using sticks and stones and knives and fire. I think the Nigerians, and the rest of the world, should be angry with the organizers of this event who are blowing off the murderous rampage in a big way.

Nope, nothing to see here. Move along. The "latest news" on the Miss World website is from August. Nothing like "we are terribly saddened about the events of last week," or "The Miss World organizers and contestants express sorrow to the families of those killed..."

Well, I'll give them time to recover from the trauma first. After all, like Miss Enlgand said as she stepped off of her chartered flight, it was all "quite daunting."

links via Plum Crazy and Spoons Experience

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference a "little incident of some rioting":

» Miss(undterstood) World from Solonor's Ink Well
Asked if the organisers bore any responsibility for the violence, (Julia Morley) replied: "I think everyone does if they are [Read More]

Comments

I'm amazed that they even try to attribute some"excuse " for the RoP actions anymore.How about"We're such friggin losers with no hope of pulling our heads out of our asses that we just might as well drag all of civilization down with us
"?

Oh, and Arab News has now decided it's actually the fault of the organizers. They should have known better than to host the tournament in Nigeria. Apparently, though, Nigerian Muslims shouldn't have known better than to burn people over something they found offensive.

You get enough Muslims in a country and the country must be ruled according to their wishes. that is their attitude. This is hardly the first episode in Nigeria of such rioting. Europe's future, live and in Cinemascope.

Does anyone else find it ironic that they destroyed mosques?

Well, one must think on the bright side, hopefully among the homeless 12,000 are some Nigerian 419 Spam Scammers. Or possibly even demised...or demished, as one letter put it.

Why such a violent reaction to a seemingly mild remark about Mohammed? I suggest the main reason is that the remark is true and Mohammed's followers had no other way to defend him.

Indeed, saying that Mohammed was an ignorant, illiterate, barbaric, bloodthirsty liar, murderer, thief, womanizer, misogynist and pedophile would not be insults. These are simple historical facts and they are actually his good points.

How, other than violence, would you go about defending such a person?

I've said it before here and I'll say it again - just because people who assign themselves to a particular religion do a certain thing, that doesn't make it the action of that religion.

Quite a few Catholic priests were recently revealed to have interfered with children in their care - does that mean that paedophilia is the doctrine of Christianity? Of course it doesn't. In the same way, just because some Muslims riot that does not mean that rioting is the doctrine of Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims in the UK and all the ones that I know have no wish to see the country run as an Islamic state - most of them are perfectly content with it being run with an established anglican church (which I'm not, but that's another story). Muslims don't speak with one voice on anything, in the same way that Christians don't and democrats (small 'c') don't - there are lots of different views on Christianity and lots of different views on democracy. Thus to say that "that is their attitude" is absurd.

As for the comment by 'mbruce' above, I thought the US was meant to be a country founded on - among other things - the idea of religious tolerance?

Thanks for the excellent thoughts, Matt (9:27 AM).

A lot of us, most Americans, want to tolerate Islam along with Christianity, Hinduism, atheism, etc., as you describe. My (limited) personal experience with Muslims is, like yours, positive.

Michele's synopsis of recent Nigerian news shows why our good intentions are insufficient, given the political Islam goal of imposing Shari'a on believers and unbelievers alike, and the acceptability of violence as a tool in the service of the cause.

FWIW, Christianity has a record that is analogously vile--look back at the church-instigated violence of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, or the history of Christian actions towards Jews.

The point is that Christian doctrine and its implementation have greatly changed since those dark times. The dominant strain of traditional Islam will need to experience its own profound alterations for it to become religion that can co-exist in a secular, liberty-based society. As Ralph Peters has pointed out, those changes are happening in some places, not in others. It's a vitally important question for the West. I think you'd agree that it isn't one that calls for detached neutrality or moral relativism on our part.

hi matt

are you not paying attention?

Have you not noticed that, while it never seems to be the muslims you know personally, it does seem to be muslims from all over the place?

Have you not noticed the body count accelerating for those of us who fail to follow the wisdom of Mohammed?

Are you insane?

And your priest analogy....you wonder why the catholic church isn't being tarred as a whole?

Do you think it could be because they have no scripture exhorting them to seek out ass?

Can Islam say the same? Are there no surahs devoted to telling the faithful to kill infidels.....ah. see what I mean?

Tolerence is a luxury reserved for those who don't want to hack our heads off.

And for what? to stop the 'evening gown' competition?

I agree with your comment that just because the rioters were muslim doesn't mean that rioting is a tenant of Islam. It's also true that all muslims aren't terrorists. The problem in my opinion is that muslims that don't share the views of those engaged in violence don't take a public stance against it. It's not enough to say that they don't agree with what was done. As long as people say they are doing something in the name of a religion, and the other people of that religion don't strongly denounce it, then they all get painted with the same brush. If you don't oppose something that claims to be representing you, then you appear to be condoning it. That's what all the muslims of the world that don't agree with what's happening need to realize. If they don't want to be treated like terrorists, then stand up and say you don't believe in what they did. What happens though is that even people with good intentions tend to qualify their disagreement with the radicals. This only works to legitimize what they've done.