Well, precisely, its an example of the right-wing press not calling something 'terrorism' despite it being committed by a religiously-motivated Muslim extremist.

Should they have done so? I guess I'm kind of half-and-half, as the Qu'ran does call for the murder of apostates and as such, the murder was carried out with a theo-political motivation. However, its such an isolated incident that I probably wouldn't quite call it 'terrorism'.

I've just gone through how these people I'm describing wanted all and sundry to proclaim loudly that the Germanwings mass-murder suicide was a terrorist attack. If a white Christian were to murder someone for apostasy, then you can bet your house on them calling it 'terrorism'.

But as I say, I can't find an example of a white Christian murdering anyone for apostasy in the Western world. So we'll have to speculate.

LetsGambool, just some advice....

Consider contacting your local civil rights organizations and seek some education on how to effectively communicate about racial issues. This may help you avoid looking like a stereotype propagating ass in the future.

Spank, just some advice

Stop trying to give advice on communication when you cant understand how to use the language. This may help you avoid being the absolute worst poster on a message board in the future.

Public murder and punishment for apostasy is like a form of terrorism. Using violence to instill fear and influence people to conform and act fearful is basic terrorism.

An atrocity committed in order to achieve a political goal by scaring and threatening the victims into political submission.

As such, yeah, I'd say that this white nationalist fits the bill. He's attempting to contribute to an ideology driven towards segregation by murdering those who fail to conform to his racially-nationalist views.

I'd also agree that governments can carry out terrorism.

The Nazi bombing of London in WW2 is a good example. The Chomsky example he used vs Sam Harris referring to the Al-Shifa chemical plant in Sudan was another one (if he's correct in saying that the US had every intention of destroying a developing nation's supply of pharmaceutical drugs).

Hey, even the French resistance in WW2 were terrorists. They attempted to make it too dangerous, frightening and expensive for the Nazis to occupy them.

Terrorism is basically a war strategy.

You mimicking the now discredited smear campaign of my language capability reflects poorly on you. Take it the the spank thread and I'll continue to school you like I have schooled the rest.

I should perhaps just clarify; I have no problem whatsoever with calling this guy a terrorist. I don't even see it as a point that I'm conceding. I agree with it wholeheartedly.

What I am arguing against is this complete and utter fantasy that there are any popular or widely-read news outlets who are passionately denying this, let alone the mainstream media.

Ok, so how does this tie back to someone murdering their grandmother for converting?

Further, why do you think there a big difference between someone murdering their victim for converting away from a religion and someone else murdering their victim for something else their religion forbids? Like, say performing an abortion or having the butt sexes?

Lol. You linked one article where a person was just speculating and wasn't calling the Germanwings pilot a terrorist, just pointing out how it was being treated differently.

I know in your world, that's like definitive proof of your victimhood.


It's a nice circular argument you've got. Obviously the anti-white-male media would repot any incident of X, and since they haven't, X has never happened.

Its an example of something that the right-wing media could have conceivably caused terrorism which they didn't.

Partly the fact that one is an action and the other a belief/thoughtcrime but moreover the fact that I think the demand to actually assimilate to the terrorist's cause, rather than simply submit to their will, is just plainly more all-encompassing and threatening.

In terms of morality they're not far off though.

Yes, the media is going to struggle to be anti-white-male when literally no white man has ever committed a religiously motivated type of murder endemic to the Muslim world.

What? This makes no sense at all. Telling someone not to have the butt sexes is exactly the same as telling someone not to convert to another religion. In both cases the person is being punished for doing an actual action.

No. There's a difference.

Forcing someone under the threat of death into refraining from a certain action is obviously a vile crime and a thoroughly evil thing to do.

However, forcing someone to accept and endorse the entire ideology behind that threat (together with innumerate other prejudices) is more all-encompassing by its very nature. The latter entails the former and includes plenty more **** to boot.

lol Rasta.

Which I guess basically sums up your views on race/gender/religion.

Just so I can get a final good chortle in. Do you believe that christian-white-males have it worse than some other religion/race/gender combinations?

There you go again.

You lost the debate, so rather than offer a counter-point, you're pretending to laugh, and offering a completely irrelevant fall-back; calling upon me to recite your liberal doctrine and list people in order of oppression purely on account of their genetalia and colour of their skin.

You might as well just shout 'Heretic! Heretic!' from the rooftops whilst pointing at me a la 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers'.

Nope.

Rasta, you didn't answer my question.

Why do you think that I don't consider it worthy of an answer?

I'm adding Rasta onto the list of secret whale cock connoisseurs. I'm sure proph and DudeImaBitch will be pleased to have another member in their cult of the whale cock.

Rasta, I think you clearly believe you're a member of a oppressed group but you also believe that actually saying it out loud is 'not ok' because that damn liberal media has waged a politically correct war on behalf of minorities that gets them favourable treatment at the expense of you and people like you.

Rasta has been a victim his entire life.

One second we're talking about terrorism, its definition, the media and whether there's a difference in severity between threatening someone to endorse an ideology and threatening someone not to engage in homosexuality, and then out of nowhere, you suddenly abandon all that and demand that I recite the doctrine of white male privilege.

Do you not see why this might be taken as disingenuous?

Or why people might ask genuine questions about who should be prioritised in contentious cases between black
people/women/gays that inadvertently satirise this identity-political based worldview?

Please, let me know what the league table is. So, its white men on top, then who comes next in the privilege league table? blacks or women?

I didn't abandon it. You kept ignoring chunks of my post, made unsubstantiated assertions about the media, and then tried to make some silly point that killing someone for converting is significantly worse than killing someone for doing something else that is against a religion.

You never explained why you thought the muslim that killed his grandmother being called a murderer was a big deal to you. You never explained how everybody avoided calling the Fort Hood shooter a terrorists even though the word appears dozens of times on the wikipedia page. You never explained how one random dude writing a blog about the bias in how criminals are described is proof of this big liberal movement to label the white pilot of the germanwings plane a terrorists.

You just say things as fact that have no basis in reality.


Wait, so you don't want to answer my question, but want me to answer yours. Well, let me put it this way. White men are on top in terms of societal privilege. Not even close. Now, what do you think?

I've asked you to provide a mainstream media source passionately arguing that the recent racist murders didn't constitute 'terrorism'. You found none whatsoever.

NaA

Ok, here I go having to repeat myself again.

It provided a perfect opportunity for supposed swathe of right-wing press in the UK to over-report it as an act of 'terrorism', where none of them did.

Eventually they had to concede that him shouting 'Allah hu Akbar' and being in contact with members of Al-Quaeda might have been a bit of a giveaway and sure enough, it won't be omitted from an objective source like Wikipedia.

Noted, next time a white person commits an atrocity that doesn't constitute terrorism I shall screenshot the most upvoted comment on several left-wing news sources calling for him to be wrongly labelled as a terrorist.

In the US, I do definitely agree. The main obstruction that black people faced that still affects their economic standing today being the obstructions in acquiring commercial loans for small businesses and mortgages which led to ghettoisation and poor housing as well as crappy jobs and education.

The main thing that cause a disparity in class and privilege is of course, inherited wealth. By and large, blacks had none.

Factor in disproportionate drug laws/sentencing, privatised prisons and a disproportionately poor population with an atrocious school system facing a racist police force and you've got a ghastly culture of inequality.

In the UK however, I'm not so sure. We just haven't had anywhere near the same racist policies or culture that the US has.

I mean, how do you explain that white, working-class children (demarcated by their use of free school meals) in the UK do much, much worse than any other ethnic group? Can you really complain about whites in the UK being unhappy that there are jobs advertised only to people with non-white skin?

I mean, if you really are going to come back with nothing but "LOOOLZ POOR WHITE PEOPLE" then OK, fair enough, but such a lack of curiosity really does betray a politics driven by racial ideology rather than actual fairness.

Cite about white kids having it worse?