Hostage-taker Mendoza and the HK racists: Is there a difference?

There are two touching and heart-warming incidents arising from the Manila hostage crisis: The tweets of Jackie Chan on Twitter, and the note of Hong Kong tourist Yik Siu Ling, a victim of the said hostage crisis.

But while Chan's and Yik's messages are products of intelligent thinking and open-mindedness, the case is otherwise with Hong Kong racists who detest Filipinos for the act of one man in the hostage-taking disaster last Monday, or mocks the Filipinos for being domestic helpers because of some 200 thousand workers in the former British colony. Or it could be that these racists are not aware that there is almost no difference between them and hostage takers? So it appears. Let us count the similarities:

1. Racists and hostage-takers are both morons. To drive a point, they usually commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. They would easily think that the act of one is the act of all. Manila hostage taker Rolando Mendoza, for instance, thought that if he kills his hostages, he can get even with those he thinks have wronged him. Similarly, Hong Kong racists think that since Mendoza is a Filipino, and that he is a hostage taker, then Filipinos are all hostage takers. If that is the case, can we say that Lucio Tan, the Gokongweis and other Chinese-blooded Filipino citizens are also hostage takers? Or shall we say that since copyright piracy is frequent in China and that Hongkong is in China, we shall charge all Hong Kong nationals for violations of copyright laws?
2. Racists and hostage-takers are short-sighted. They only look at the present and do not consider the implications of their actions. Hostage-taker Mendoza died. If there will be no domestic helpers in Hongkong, will the life of its citizens be convenient also? Well, we can excuse this short-sightedness. Racists and hostage-takers are both morons anyway. 
3. Aside from intellectual (and/or logic) deficiency, they both suffer from psychological problems. If their fellows -- that is, the radical perfectionists and the puritan cults -- are to be consulted, these flukes of the civilized world (hostage-takers and racists) will be recommended for extermination. But of course, doing so is another act of barbaric act. 
4. Racists and hostage-takers use other people to advance their cause. Hostage-taker Mendoza, for instance, used a bus-load of people to air his grievance while Hong Kong racists tried to trample on the dignity and even rights of the Filipinos just to show that they are a more superior race. 
5. Racists and hostage-takers are both barbaric and uncivillized. They both think that they still live in the primitive era. They forgot that the world has changed and that there are rules to deal with everything.
6. To some extent, they both use violence. Hostage-taker Mendoza's actions describes this best. On the part of the racists, these include the reports of house-help beating to the point of killing as what happened to the Jews during Hitler's era.

So, what is the difference between hostage-takers and racists? It's only the name, my friend.