Because you think any extremist is far right.
So far left extremism doesn't exist?
Beheading at Notre-Dame basilica in Nice
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
- Status
Because you think any extremist is far right.
So far left extremism doesn't exist?
Why are you the first person to comment about muslim grooming gangs then mention Catholics being the victims? I mean just say you're racist and be done with it.
Sure it does...it rarely happens though and you know it. The fact remains this was a far right attack and the perpetrator has the same ideology as a number of posters on this very thread.
I wouldn't say it was that rare, the USA is experiencing a lot of unrest from left wing groups right now.
Come on now...you know what we are talking about. Protesting about something is one thing, straight up murdering sprees is another.
Caporegime
Surely the murder sprees against the oppression of Muslims are leftist?
Yeah, i'm just highlighting your mindset. All extremists = right wing. Your words not mine.
We also know Islamic extremism and Far right extremism tend to be spoken about differently, they are not the same even if they share similarities.
The people murdered oppressed muslims?
Why do they? Its far right ideology. We have people in this thread mentioning concentration camps as a solution mate. How about we dont talk about them differently and call it out for what it is?
Its religious ideology. You might try and lump them in with the skinheads but most wont fall for it.
Soldato
Soldato
You couldn't make this up.
And the gov are letting people like this in to our country.
Nah sorry but they stand for the same thing. Wr have people in this very thread wanting to ban a religion. We have a murderer basically wanting to do the same.
Its far right, vile and needs stopping.
Oh so now you want a citation. LOL only when it suits.
Soldato
You said something I think is not correct and I will ask you for evidence.
The same as other people have asked me.
"only when it suits." sorry ..what!?
Now have you got proof or not?
So I haven't said we should ban anything, I don't think anyone has except for the one guy wanting to close Mosques, but why in your view does religion get a "free pass"? Why does religion deserve any special protections from criticisms? There are numerous ideologies we've pretty much banned outright, why not a religion?
It absolutely doesn't get a free pass but then i dont label every Muslim as a murderer just because of a few nut jobs because i'm not a racist.
No one has done that, you're using a straw man argument. If it doesn't get a free pass as per your previous post, why couldn't we ban it if we deemed it as inciting hate? We're pretty quick to ban people who "incite hate" these days, but Islam is absolutely untouchable it seems, no matter what the death count rises to.
Ok, in what way is this attack different to the Brenton Tarrant attack on mosques in 2019? He went on a murdering spree to protect "his people" a similar motive to that of a suicide bomber. He deliberately targeted those of a certain religion...i.e what this moron did in Nice. Tarrant anxiously observes the wave of Muslim immigration into Europe and concludes that European culture is nearing an imminent demise or, as he calls it, ‘white genocide’, because of the differences in birth rates between Europeans and immigrants.
Both far right.
Yet you want a religion banning? It doesn't incite hate at all. You're talking about a very small number of people and happy to label them all the same.
Soldato
So you have no evidence what so ever.
Then go on about something else.
And no evidence to back that up.
Again you're using a strawman, I quite clearly said in my first post I didn't want a religion banning, I asked a question. If it doesn't incite hate why are there thousands of people dead directly due to things they've taken from their religion?
Literally just compared the two mate. Ones labelled far right yet this isn't? You're talking utter nonsense.
Explain why it isnt in comparison to that. They are almost identical...why is one far right and the other not?
I find it amazing that someone would opt to argue to use a less specific name for what this is. Why would you call this a far-right attack when it’s clearly far more specific to call it an Islamic terrorist attack.
It’s almost as if you’re trying to lump it in with other types of attack so that you can then downplay that Islamic ones are the most common/severe at current times. That couldn’t possibly be your motivation could it? If you can lump it in with other types of terrorism you can then start deflecting.
“well it’s a far right attack”
“not all far right attacks are Islamic”
What you’re arguing for is to stop someone saying:
“Oh that’s a nice BMW”
And you say:
“No it’s a car, just like any other car. Stop calling it a BMW, it’s a car”
Arguing for less specificity because you want to share the burden of guilt with other groups you deem responsible for far right terror. Your motives are incredibly transparent.
Have you considered a job in BBC journalism?
It’s almost as if you’re trying to lump it in with other types of attack so that you can then downplay that Islamic ones are the most common/severe at current times. That couldn’t possibly be your motivation could it? If you can lump it in with other types of terrorism you can then start deflecting.
“well it’s a far right attack”
“not all far right attacks are Islamic”
What you’re arguing for is to stop someone saying:
“Oh that’s a nice BMW”
And you say:
“No it’s a car, just like any other car. Stop calling it a BMW, it’s a car”
Arguing for less specificity because you want to share the burden of guilt with other groups you deem responsible for far right terror. Your motives are incredibly transparent.
Have you considered a job in BBC journalism?
Last edited:
- Status