Christchurch mosque shootings: the heartbreaking hearing

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

Boru

Pick a charge's name then if that makes you comfortable.

It’s got bugger all to do with my comfort level.  If you aren’t able to distinguish mass killers from terrorists, you’re not going to be able to discuss the subject intelligently. It’s as if the topic was owls and you spend your time talking about pigeons.

Boru

[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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree with most of that, with a couple of exceptions.

-Islamic terrorists don’t kill for the sake of killing. While they tend to be much more fanatical that other terrorists, they DO have agendas beyond merely killing lots of people. If these agendas are met (they never will be), the killings would stop.

-While Winter is clearly not a militant Islamist, he’s on the path to radicalization. His rhetoric - which has gotten significantly stronger - shows it. He’s gone from merely defending the more unsavory aspects of his religion to actively hoping for the deaths of Westerners and the destruction of Western civilization. I suspect that his disability is the only thing keeping him from taking a more active role. Maybe the best way to put it is that he IS radicalized, just not active.

Boru

[Deesse23]

I agree with most of that, with a couple of exceptions.

-Islamic terrorists don’t kill for the sake of killing. While they tend to be much more fanatical that other terrorists, they DO have agendas beyond merely killing lots of people. If these agendas are met (they never will be), the killings would stop.

Sure. i should have been more clear about this.

I will rephrase:
"Conventional" terrorists i mentioned have a message, and they want to spread this message, per manifesto or on trial, or during negotiations. Its part of their whole activity. Thus they tend to try and survive, even if they commit suicide later (or get executed), after delivering their message.

Suicidal islamists, dont want to spread a message, although they have one. They view themselves however not as a messenger but only as a tool of Allah. The message is in what their imam says the Quran says. There is no need for a suicidal islamist to "communicate" in any meaningful way, he is not a mouthpiece he is a living bomb. Literally.
In this regard they are very much like Kamikaze were (intended to be) and their inherent danger has the same root: this person can not be stopped, not be argued with, not be dealt with other than to kill him/her. The only thing in question is "how many innocent people will be killed as well?"

-While Winter is clearly not a militant Islamist, he’s on the path to radicalization. His rhetoric - which has gotten significantly stronger - shows it. He’s gone from merely defending the more unsavory aspects of his religion to actively hoping for the deaths of Westerners and the destruction of Western civilization. I suspect that his disability is the only thing keeping him from taking a more active role. Maybe the best way to put it is that he IS radicalized, just not active.

Boru

Agreed

He often pretends/claims to be in favour of peace and against violence, but his often stated hope of future suffering, his glee for suffering in the past, his rationalisation of others´ violence and suffering tells me otherwise. Either he is not yet at the end of his path to actual violence, he is just a coward, or its his disability. Yet, even with MS you could strap on a bomb....

whatever it is that keeps him from hurting others i am clearly glad that he is either physically inable, too much of a coward or not radicalized enough yet. Some of those root causes may be more hurtful to him as a person than others. But nobody has forced him to radicalize himself, to buy and propagate horrible ideas, to be ignorant and sacrifice his humanity on the altar of religion (cue: obsession with physical punishment in general, particularly mutilation for minor crimes).

From the perspective of a (potential) victim of his i must say i dont wish suffering on anyone. However its him and himself only who decided to put his unwarranted religious belief in front of reason and humanity, and therefore my sympathy for his health condition or possbile personal situation in the country he currently resides in is very limited. If the only things that keep him from hurting others are his ill health or he is oppressed* and so cant openly act on his horrible beliefs, well then so be it.

*in terms of being kept from doing what he likes, like hurting others

[WinterHold]

I agree with most of that, with a couple of exceptions.

-Islamic terrorists don’t kill for the sake of killing. While they tend to be much more fanatical that other terrorists, they DO have agendas beyond merely killing lots of people. If these agendas are met (they never will be), the killings would stop.

-While Winter is clearly not a militant Islamist, he’s on the path to radicalization. His rhetoric - which has gotten significantly stronger - shows it. He’s gone from merely defending the more unsavory aspects of his religion to actively hoping for the deaths of Westerners and the destruction of Western civilization. I suspect that his disability is the only thing keeping him from taking a more active role. Maybe the best way to put it is that he IS radicalized, just not active.

Boru

And once again you raise the "Islamic terrorism" scapegoat to escape the shattering mirage of the "white-man = civilized-non-killing-angel".

Despite that the terrorist is in front of you and is white and is non-Muslim and his agenda has nothing to with Islam, you still raise the "Islamic terrorism" card.

Now; you claimed to be a psychic of some sort that knows what I will become in the future. Read what you are writing; see the similarities between you and the terrorist Tarrant; see how Islamophobia covered you both in tar and turned you into psychics claiming to know the future and know what is in the hearts of people.

But I repeated my agenda in here so many times, over and over, but yet I meet people like you who don't like my religion and claim to know what's inside me.

What if I told you that I hope you brought your shitting pants, because obviously you -and all the Islamophobic- have begun to shit their pants as the mirage began to shatter. Look at you for example: you are trying your hardest to destroy my image, you are desperately trying to play Tarrant's game by spreading Islamophobia.

You are nothing. And who reads my posts knows me; and who reads yours know you.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't imagine where you get these ideas from. You realize that we don't see ourselves as civilized non-killing angels, right?

It would have been alot easier for islamism to achieve it's goals if that were the case, same with white supremacy - which we fought a civil war over.

[Deesse23]

And once again you raise the "Islamic terrorism" scapegoat to escape the shattering mirage of the "white-man = civilized-non-killing-angel".

Strawman. Noone ever claimed that in this forum. Its just you making these baseless accusations constantly. Repeating them ad nauseam doenst make them true.

see the similarities between you and the terrorist Tarrant;

What a blatant lie and slander.

Now you owe Boru another apology. Never ever has he (or anyone else on the forum advocated anything Tarrant did). Not remotely.

But let me ask you this:
If we would ask a radicalized, violent islamist about the just punishment for theft, according to the Quran. What whould his answer be?
If we would ask you about the just punishment for theft, according to the Quran. What would your answer be?

see how Islamophobia covered you both in tar and turned you into psychics claiming to know the future and know what is in the hearts of people.

...says the guy whose entire job on this forum is to tell people what their views and motivations are. He literally has nothing else to do.

But I repeated my agenda in here so many times, over and over, but yet I meet people like you who don't like my religion and claim to know what's inside me.

Did you make thread about "Did humanity deserve corona virus? What was your answer to your own question?
What is the just punishment for theft?
Do you deny that you constantly revel in the suffering of others, particularly the ones who arent of your tribe/religion, aka "the west"? That you wish them to suffer.

What if I told you that I hope you brought your shitting pants, because obviously you -and all the Islamophobic-

-phobia is an irrational aversion of something.
Boru and most others are as much islamophpobes as we are cancerophobes

have begun to shit their pants as the mirage began to shatter.

Islamist threat talk. Utterly unimpressive.
Oh and how you know we are shitting our pants. Are you psychic now? (see above)

Look at you for example: you are trying your hardest to destroy my image, you are desperately trying to play Tarrant's game by spreading Islamophobia.

Tarant is a lunatic. He despises not only muslims but everyone non white. He has no clear ideology, but a horrible mix of horrible ideas, some of which usually exclude each other. But why would you care about anyone but muslims, right?

Tarrant killed muslims. Boru and others criticize islam. Do you see the difference? Obviously not. Because you are radicalized past a point where reasoning with you became impossible, which quite a few people already told you.

And who reads my posts knows me; and who reads yours know you.

Exactly

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I agree with most of that, with a couple of exceptions.

-Islamic terrorists don’t kill for the sake of killing. While they tend to be much more fanatical that other terrorists, they DO have agendas beyond merely killing lots of people. If these agendas are met (they never will be), the killings would stop.

-While Winter is clearly not a militant Islamist, he’s on the path to radicalization. His rhetoric - which has gotten significantly stronger - shows it. He’s gone from merely defending the more unsavory aspects of his religion to actively hoping for the deaths of Westerners and the destruction of Western civilization. I suspect that his disability is the only thing keeping him from taking a more active role. Maybe the best way to put it is that he IS radicalized, just not active.

Boru

And once again you raise the "Islamic terrorism" scapegoat to escape the shattering mirage of the "white-man = civilized-non-killing-angel".

Despite that the terrorist is in front of you and is white and is non-Muslim and his agenda has nothing to with Islam, you still raise the "Islamic terrorism" card.

Now; you claimed to be a psychic of some sort that knows what I will become in the future. Read what you are writing; see the similarities between you and the terrorist Tarrant; see how Islamophobia covered you both in tar and turned you into psychics claiming to know the future and know what is in the hearts of people.

But I repeated my agenda in here so many times, over and over, but yet I meet people like you who don't like my religion and claim to know what's inside me.

What if I told you that I hope you brought your shitting pants, because obviously you -and all the Islamophobic- have begun to shit their pants as the mirage began to shatter. Look at you for example: you are trying your hardest to destroy my image, you are desperately trying to play Tarrant's game by spreading Islamophobia.

You are nothing. And who reads my posts knows me; and who reads yours know you.

I'm not trying to scapegoat anyone.  I referred to Islamist terrorism because that was the topic.  If you like, I'll be more than happy to delve into the animals that make up alphabet soup of Irish terrorism, or those savages in the Red Brigades. Or even FARC, though I admittedly know less about them than the first two groups.

I really don't think you can make the charge of Islamophobia stick to me. I neither hate nor fear Muslims as a group (although some individual Muslims piss me directly off). I object to terrorism no matter who commits it, irrespective of ideology. The notion that political and social change is best achieved by the wholesale slaughter of innocent people is anathema to me, full stop.

I made my supposition (and that's all it is) of your radicalization based on what you've said here.  I hope I'm wrong.

Your notion of the mirage and my support of it are both non-existent.  I've said many times here that the West has a helluva lot to answer for.  Can you be honest enough to same the same about the Islamic world?


Boru

[Angrboda]

Can you be honest enough to same the same about the Islamic world?

[Silver]

What I love most about the original post is not that he was attempting to bring attention to a heartbreaking terrorist attack, but rather that he wanted to dig deep into those Islamic roots by ending the post with informing us that we were the problem and that we were going to get what was our due.