Christchurch Al Noor Imam radicalised Westerners, does that matter

a reply to: Bloodworth

you remember my olds posts.

Seeing as you posed them recently they are not that old and seeing as you posted them numerous times that had nothing to do with the topics of the thread which indicates an agenda are easily remembered.

Yes the reason why they are ditching their home countries because its inhabitable.

Yes?

so you are talking about the Mosque victims?

Do you even know how many different nationalities there were attending the Mosque?

They have showed little progress as a civilization the last 500 years.

The mosque victims?

again, you fail to clearly say who you are talking about.

Its implied its Muslims in general which if true shows you are no better than those that cut innocent peoples heads or shoots 50 innocent people.

And yes its important that my one experience in a mosque showed what was really going on

going by this, then the one experience that happened in Christchurch using your logic is enough justification for other atrocities.

Instead the u.s. should take on some of their failed civilization policies.

Can you not stay on topic and forget about the US and whatever school trips you went on and actually talk about the topic of the thread?

Hell no There is no comparison so dont even try

So radical Muslims that have hate for all non Muslims and moderate Muslims don't compare to you labeling all Muslims the way you do?

Please try other jokes, these are not even funny but sad.

and to finish to show how ignorant you really

I made no comparisons in my post to you

This is what I posted

"radicals from any mindset would be proud to have humans walking this earth such as yourself"

That is not a comparison but a statement of fact or simply my opinion but in no way a comparison.

You make the comparisons by your own expressions painting all Muslims the way you do.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Funny isn’t it, you are right, not so shocked Guess I have seen this happen globally for decades, based on religion and non religion Port Arthur, kill NGOs in US schools by other children, Bali bombings the list is endless No I am not shocked, what does that tell you about the world we live in

Seriously?

You start your thread saying you were shocked but now say you really weren't and this article makes no difference like you said it did that made you not so shocked?

You seem to like to over react in my opinion

the way some express themselves make me wonder are they just stupid and know no better or whats really going on in their heads.

So,e one could kill my family, it’s life, it’s cheap to others

So then how could there be any overreactions from anyone like I say I do?

Life is cheap.

This reply just shows why you posted this along with your reply to conspiracy nut about getting stars on ATS really hits a home run.

Funny how all the people sympathizing with this killer, talking about how violence begets violence, are the same people that cry anytime a Nazi gets punched.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Funny how all the people sympathizing with this killer, talking about how violence begets violence, are the same people that cry anytime a Nazi gets punched.

LOL which Nazis? Everyones labelled a Nazi anymore so its hard to judge.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Let's start with the classic and say Richard Spencer.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Does it matter that an Imam may have radicalised a person or two? Yes. If proved, charges should be brought.

Does that justify wading in and massacring 49 innocent people and injuring many more? No, not in the slightest. As others have stated, that mindset is little different to the one perpetrating the attack in question.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Funny how all the people sympathizing with this killer, talking about how violence begets violence, are the same people that cry anytime a Nazi gets punched.

I havnt come across anyone sympathetic to the killer
Your narrative is a strawman
You are making things up to argue against that no one else supports

Why do that, I expect it's because you can't form a relevant argument or or find an individual soft enough to attack so you make the strawman to look relevant

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Raggedyman

Does it matter that an Imam may have radicalised a person or two? Yes. If proved, charges should be brought.

Does that justify wading in and massacring 49 innocent people and injuring many more? No, not in the slightest. As others have stated, that mindset is little different to the one perpetrating the attack in question.

Nothing justifies the murders but,
I don't see it as just a random act of violence perpetrated against innocents

If the terrorist new what had happened

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Nothing justifies the murders but,
I don't see it as just a random act of violence perpetrated against innocents

If the terrorist new what had happened

Whilst i understand what you mean, if you take that mindset to its logical conclusion then it means that the 3 year old murdered in the mosque was somehow responsible also for the radicalisation.

See? It doesn't really work, does it?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Look up the definition of sympathy.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I was very shocked when I heard about the slaughter, less so if it is related to the fact an Imam preached radicalization
Kinda makes sense to me that there could be a retaliation

Sorry if how I feel and think triggers you

Now if you think retaliation is acceptable or not is pointless and irrelevant, some 50 odd people lay dead because maybe someone retaliated
That is important, like it or not

a reply to: Raggedyman

I expect it's because you can't form a relevant argument or or find an individual soft enough to attack so you make the strawman to look relevant

a relevant argument?

Your thread and OP are about an article and your OP asks a few question about persons feelings after reading the article.

Nothing to argue

quite a few posts indicate this thread is not about what the OP is asking

hate breeds more hate,

hate allows for anger to get the better of us

I apologize if my post seemed like an overreaction.

But its similar threads like this that invites the hate mongerers on ATS to spread their stink and not actually say anything in reference to the Op and just spread their own fears and hate.

Once again I apologize for how I expressed myself and bow out because the ways I am interpreting many posts in this thread are just too wrong in my opinion and just cause more division amongst us which can only spread via the many readers.

Its the small tid bits posted and ideas and words that add up in ones mind.

enough addition of so much division can lead too......... something sinister.

the more connected we are via technology the same time divides even more so.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Nothing justifies the murders but,
I don't see it as just a random act of violence perpetrated against innocents

If the terrorist new what had happened

Whilst i understand what you mean, if you take that mindset to its logical conclusion then it means that the 3 year old murdered in the mosque was somehow responsible also for the radicalisation.

See? It doesn't really work, does it?

I didn't say it was justified, where do you get this from, another strawman
There is no excuse
What I am saying is I understand why someone may have reacted the way they did

What logical conclusion are you on about
I never said anyone was responsible but the gunman certainly thought someone was responsible, yes that's exactly right and he did hold a three year old responsible for someone else's actions, obviously. There are 50 dead, obviously the gunmen held those who attended the mosque responsible

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Raggedyman

Look up the definition of sympathy.

So are you implying I am not sympathetic to the murdered people or am not sympathetic to the gunman?

Maybe not sympathetic to those who were killed by those who were radicalised by the Imam or maybe the two men who were radicalised and died in Yemen
Let me know

Or maybe what I want to get across is that if you are going to preach hate, anyone, any religion, any reason, there is a chance that someone will come after you
But no
You want to make strawman and slay the evil people who support the terrorist gunman
Nobody here I have noted justified the gunman, stop pretending they have

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Nothing justifies the murders but,
I don't see it as just a random act of violence perpetrated against innocents

If the terrorist new what had happened

Whilst i understand what you mean, if you take that mindset to its logical conclusion then it means that the 3 year old murdered in the mosque was somehow responsible also for the radicalisation.

See? It doesn't really work, does it?

I didn't say it was justified, where do you get this from, another strawman
There is no excuse
What I am saying is I understand why someone may have reacted the way they did

What logical conclusion are you on about
I never said anyone was responsible but the gunman certainly thought someone was responsible, yes that's exactly right and he did hold a three year old responsible for someone else's actions, obviously. There are 50 dead, obviously the gunmen held those who attended the mosque responsible

You saying you understand why someone may have reacted that way is giving justification - don't you see that? I am not saying that YOU believe that yourself, but providing excuses for murder is justification for those murders.

The West invaded the Middle East and created thousands and thousands of orphans. Does that therefore justify Islamic terror attacks? Of course not. And if that argument cannot work one way, then it doesn't work the other does it? It is nothing to do with strawman arguments and everything to do with logic, common sense and decency.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Nothing justifies the murders but,
I don't see it as just a random act of violence perpetrated against innocents

If the terrorist new what had happened

Whilst i understand what you mean, if you take that mindset to its logical conclusion then it means that the 3 year old murdered in the mosque was somehow responsible also for the radicalisation.

See? It doesn't really work, does it?

I didn't say it was justified, where do you get this from, another strawman
There is no excuse
What I am saying is I understand why someone may have reacted the way they did

What logical conclusion are you on about
I never said anyone was responsible but the gunman certainly thought someone was responsible, yes that's exactly right and he did hold a three year old responsible for someone else's actions, obviously. There are 50 dead, obviously the gunmen held those who attended the mosque responsible

You saying you understand why someone may have reacted that way is giving justification - don't you see that? I am not saying that YOU believe that yourself, but providing excuses for murder is justification for those murders.

The West invaded the Middle East and created thousands and thousands of orphans. Does that therefore justify Islamic terror attacks? Of course not. And if that argument cannot work one way, then it doesn't work the other does it? It is nothing to do with strawman arguments and everything to do with logic, common sense and decency.

WW1 bled Germany dry, the Jews stopped financing the war and Germany was forced to surrender. The ramifications of that surrender, Versailles treaty was crushing and caused the rise of Hitlers fascist reign. Mostly because Germany lost a lot of land, the capacity to rebuild, war guilt and foreign repatriation, 1918'was the start of WW2 because of that agreement

See I understand why the Nazi party rose, why Hitler hated Jews and why Nazi Germany ultimately were forced to go to war
Now according to you, because I understand what happened and why, I am justifying the Nazis and what they did to the Jews. I understand Mao, why he did what he did, what he wanted for his people, does that mean I justify Mao.
Outside of me, I have read multiple historians who understand why Hitler did what he did, do they justify Hitler
Churchill stated he understood the Versailles treaty caused WW2, does that mean Churchill justified WW2
I understand why Hilary wanted to be president, does that mean I would vote for jer

Your argument is that of an insane person
Because I understand something in your logical mind means I agree with it, are you joking?

originally posted by: Flavian
The West invaded the Middle East and created thousands and thousands of orphans. Does that therefore justify Islamic terror attacks? Of course not. And if that argument cannot work one way, then it doesn't work the other does it? It is nothing to do with strawman arguments and everything to do with logic, common sense and decency.

Yes I understand the West invaded the Mid East, killed millions, they did it for money, power, greed. I understand that
Obviously because I understand it that means I support it, in your head evidently but

You seem to understand it so obviously by your logic YOU JUSTIFY IT AS WELL

Your argument is deranged

a reply to: Raggedyman

understanding between people; common feeling.

You are expressing a common feeling with the shooter. Thus, you are sympathetic to him.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Raggedyman

understanding between people; common feeling.

You are expressing a common feeling with the shooter. Thus, you are sympathetic to him.

I have common feelings with Muslims who are being slaughtered by invading US forces, mothers and fathers who lose children to drone strikes
I am sympathetic to them.

Maybe that is what someone meant when the word compassion came up

Strangely, I don't understand your insane argument

And just one final statement. I don't know if the shooter knew of the radicalised Westeners so your point is pointless
Your accusations are just simply dumb

a reply to: Raggedyman

When did using the proper definition of a word become an insane argument?