Christchurch mosque shootings: the heartbreaking hearing

[Deesse23]

Paddock wasn't a terrorist. Why is the distinction so difficult for you to understand?

Boru

Quite obvious: Rationalisation

Rationalisation in terms of trying to make a false quivalency of (religiously motivated, and thats the core of the problem) islamist terrorsits with everything else. He is desperately trying to call all other things "terrorism" and "equal to" what islamist terrorists are doing, since he may feels uncomfortable not being able to distance himself from those otherwise.

Its absurd on the face of it * to assert that any other form of (mostly domestic) terrorism is even in the same ballpark as religiously motivated islamist terrorism. Its their religious conviction that makes them not give a shit about their own life, unlike most all of other assassins/terrorists, whatever you wanna call them. More "sane" people have a message to convey. They want to survive in order to tell it, even if its only in their court trial where they all so often proudly parade their horrible ideas around. Militant and suicidal islamists dont.

Islamist terrorists are a completely separate ballpark. They dont give a fucking shit, about anything. They think they will wind up with virgins in a *paradise* anyway, they couldnt give a shit about themselves, their targets (of course) or any other innocent people involved (so called *collateral damage*). Ironically Atlass aruged that part of the definition of a terrorist is that he kills for killing sake. Thats very much the case for islamist terrorists compared to most others, however not for many other ones like the Unabomber who had a message or McVeigh who argued he woulndt have blown up a building had he known there to be a kindergarden (yet he pulled the collateral damage card too). Ironically Atlass blames "the west" for collateral damage, when its the islamists who indiscriminately kill, even their own, more than not. Collateral damage is not a privilege of anybody (elase), but Atlass will keep being in denial. He is here to preach, not to put his ideas to the test.

Last but not least, it makes islamists much, much more dangerous, because they are so hard to stop. Its literally the same problem the american AA had with japanese kamikaze pilots. With a 50cal or even 20mm you can damage a plane (and hurt the pilot) to the point that he is gonna abort his attack. What they learned in 1944, is that you had to literally disintegrate the plane and kill the pilot, because the pilots already intended not to return to base. And lots of AA armament on the *light* side wasnt able ot do that.

Any "normal" terrorist" would have been much easier to stop hijacking a plane. They have something they want, they want a message to be sent to authorities, some barter to be made. Hence they hijack the plane, land it somewhere...
Not so with islamists. They went up in those planes to kill, themselves and as many other people they could. They had no other point to make than to kill.

Same thing when they gird themselves with exploseves. We have ample footage. People blowing themselves up, and tring to take whomever they can with them. They drive htemselves in their cars into barriers, they blow up themselves in public squares, killing muslims, old and young. Not only are they hard to spot but also hard to stop, because of the determination.

Islamists (terrorists) arent deluded individuals, like the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh, or followers of some fringe groups. They are part of an ideology. An ideology based on some religion. Islamism is maybe a minoriry of islam and military islamism is maybe a minority in islamism. But we are still talking about thousands of individuals (if not more) who have no regard for others´lives, including their their own.

Thats where Altass´equivocations of "terrorism", and finally marginalizing the islamist terrorism by trying to entirely shift the focus "the west"*** fails
Now while Atlass is quite obviously a kind of islamist, i doubt he is a militant one**, but he needs to own those, since they claim to follow the same book Atlass claims he is following. How am i supposed to know who is right about their interpretation? Well accoring to Atlass, i must trusth him. According to some suicidal militant islamist its his favourite imam or whoever. (so please spare us from any suras and translations if oyu can).
As far as i am concerned, we dont need this book at all. As far as Atlass is concerned this book is the only way. If others are using it to justify terror by suicide, then he has to own this to a degree.

I, as a "westerner" dont have to own the Unabomber, McVeigh, or some crazy New Zealander, because i have nothing in common with them. We have no common ground that we claim to be standing on. I suspect Atlass, deep inside knows this very well, and thats what motivates him to be engaged in this absurd distortion of facts. He seems not to be able to distance himselves from islamist terrorism, so he has to marginalize it by pretending "the west" has the "same ole issue". Its a big fat "tu quoque" (even more, since he claims the "western" terrorism is worse than the real one). Ironically one of his pet arguments to shut down opposition.


*apart from the equally absurd notion of "end of "the west". We keep hearing this BS for ages now, and if anything breaks down, its not "the "west". There were no revolutions in the west, unlike in half of the arab world. No continuing wars and mass murder, unlike in the arab world. Its just another wet dream of his, and part of his islamist extrmism

**although his repeated and evidenced glee for violence of others in such a way is quite suspicious.

***god, is that despicable, makes me always puke when i see him acting to dishonest and ignorant