|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 27, 2019 23:41:22 GMT
Of course not, because the attacker wasn’t an “extremist for Christianity”. He was an ethno-nationalist. Here are the facts. Muslims get slaughtered in a mosque by a racist and Obama and Clinton are quick to mention the religion of the victims and the motivation of the attackers. Christians are slaughtered in even bigger numbers in a church by Islamists(something that’s happening on a daily basis across large parts of the world) and they couldn’t even bring themselves to type the words “Christians” or “islamists”. This is clear hypocrisy and a double standard and you’re here trying to defend those two cowards?! As the guy in the video put it nicely, these good for nothing leftist politicians need to either be consistent or be quiet. Of course he was an extremist for Christianity. That was his motivation. Read up on the attacker. No. His motivation was to oppose “white genocide”. He was an extremist for white European heritage. The ‘Fourteen words’ slogan. ”We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,”
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 28, 2019 0:26:46 GMT
This thread is very revealing for people who want to study human nature. Let's look at the facts outside of this thread. We have mass killings, committed by theists leaning to the "political right", targeting people of different faiths. From Christchurch to Sri Lanka. We have people, considered by most Americans to be more moderate than the "political right", condemning these mass killings. And we have people, leaning to the "political right", condemning these moderates for not specifically adressing the groups to whom the perpetrators and most victims belong, like they would do if they were tribalists. And on this thread, we have people leaning to the "political right" agreeing with their people; like they would with a tribe; and saying LOL when members of other groups are killed. Pure tribalism, exhibiting herd mentality of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the enemy of my friend is my enemy". Conclusion: This seems to confirm what I have been suspecting for a while: People leaning to the "political right" are animals. Aren't we all?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 28, 2019 0:38:20 GMT
This thread is very revealing for people who want to study human nature. Let's look at the facts outside of this thread. We have mass killings, committed by theists leaning to the "political right", targeting people of different faiths. From Christchurch to Sri Lanka. We have people, considered by most Americans to be more moderate than the "political right", condemning these mass killings. And we have people, leaning to the "political right", condemning these moderates for not specifically adressing the groups to whom the perpetrators and most victims belong, like they would do if they were tribalists. And on this thread, we have people leaning to the "political right" agreeing with their people; like they would with a tribe; and saying LOL when members of other groups are killed. Pure tribalism, exhibiting herd mentality of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the enemy of my friend is my enemy". Conclusion: This seems to confirm what I have been suspecting for a while: People leaning to the "political right" are animals. Aren't we all? AND not to mention that the far right and people like Cody ONLY ever listen to or read things which re-enforce their prejudices and attribute ONLY bad things to those who try to use logic or facts to oppose those pre-conceived ideas. The main difference is really present in the labels. 'Liberals' are open to new ideas and conservatives are not. Liberals tend to me more progressive egalitarian globalists and conservatives tend to be more tribalist xenophobic isolationists.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 28, 2019 6:56:08 GMT
This thread is very revealing for people who want to study human nature. Let's look at the facts outside of this thread. We have mass killings, committed by theists leaning to the "political right", targeting people of different faiths. From Christchurch to Sri Lanka. We have people, considered by most Americans to be more moderate than the "political right", condemning these mass killings. And we have people, leaning to the "political right", condemning these moderates for not specifically adressing the groups to whom the perpetrators and most victims belong, like they would do if they were tribalists. And on this thread, we have people leaning to the "political right" agreeing with their people; like they would with a tribe; and saying LOL when members of other groups are killed. Pure tribalism, exhibiting herd mentality of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the enemy of my friend is my enemy". Conclusion: This seems to confirm what I have been suspecting for a while: People leaning to the "political right" are animals. Aren't we all? Except Tarrant never actually confirmed that he was a theist. In fact he declared that he wants no part of conservatism. You dishonest and shameless leftists are so eager to portray him as a “Christian extremist” it’s getting quite pathetic. The only conclusion here is you’re a fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 28, 2019 9:02:54 GMT
Tarrant never actually confirmed that he was a theist. In fact he declared that he wants no part of conservatism. Tarrant cited Anders Breivik as an inspiration and role model, and agreeing with his views. Breivik happens to be a Christian. You dishonest and shameless leftists are so eager to portray him as a “Christian extremist” it’s getting quite pathetic. Except I never called Tarrant a "Christian extremist". The only conclusion here is you’re a fucking idiot. Coming from you, that's a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 28, 2019 9:09:31 GMT
AND not to mention that the far right and people like Cody ONLY ever listen to or read things which re-enforce their prejudices and attribute ONLY bad things to those who try to use logic or facts to oppose those pre-conceived ideas. The main difference is really present in the labels. 'Liberals' are open to new ideas and conservatives are not. Liberals tend to me more progressive egalitarian globalists and conservatives tend to be more tribalist xenophobic isolationists. To be fair: Some people on the "political right" are intelligent and do listen to what people not on the "political right" say. They just draw questionable conclusions from it. Whether they do this because of opportunism or ideology... I don't know, and I don't know if it really matters.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 28, 2019 13:40:47 GMT
Tarrant never actually confirmed that he was a theist. In fact he declared that he wants no part of conservatism. Tarrant cited Anders Breivik as an inspiration and role model, and agreeing with his views. Breivik happens to be a Christian. You dishonest and shameless leftists are so eager to portray him as a “Christian extremist” it’s getting quite pathetic. Except I never called Tarrant a "Christian extremist". The only conclusion here is you’re a fucking idiot. Coming from you, that's a compliment. Tarrant agreed with Breivik’s views in regards to racial theory and white supremacy. And Breivik is not a Christian but a follower of Germanic neopaganism. I find it astonishing how the likes you and Rizdek and rest of you liberal creeps try to use the Christchurch massacre as an example of extremism for Christianity when A) the perpetrator was not a Christian B) all the evidence points to his murder spree being purely motivated by racism and ethno-nationalism and C) his actions completely contradicts Christian ethics anyway. Yet when it’s Islamists slaughtering people in the name of a religion that calls for the violent subjugation and persecution of non-believers all of sudden it’s “nothing to do with Islam” and “yeah but not all Muslims”.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 28, 2019 14:40:14 GMT
I find it astonishing how the likes you and Rizdek and rest of you liberal creeps try to use the Christchurch massacre as an example of extremism for Christianity when A) the perpetrator was not a Christian B) all the evidence points to his murder spree being purely motivated by racism and ethno-nationalism and C) his actions completely contradicts Christian ethics anyway. Yet when it’s Islamists slaughtering people in the name of a religion that calls for the violent subjugation and persecution of non-believers all of sudden it’s “nothing to do with Islam” and “yeah but not all Muslims”. Good luck finding one instance of me calling the Christchurch massacre an "example of extremism for Christianity", or mentioning either of the sentences “nothing to do with Islam” and “yeah but not all Muslims” when talking about Islamism; like in this thread. I'm not holding my breath, of course. Liars like you usually don't back up their claims. EDIT: I was right.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 28, 2019 22:14:23 GMT
Of course he was an extremist for Christianity. That was his motivation. Read up on the attacker. No. His motivation was to oppose “white genocide”. He was an extremist for white European heritage. The ‘Fourteen words’ slogan. ”We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” He is fighting a holy war on behalf of Christianity. And why are Obama's and Hillary's approach hypocritical?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 28, 2019 23:10:23 GMT
Tarrant cited Anders Breivik as an inspiration and role model, and agreeing with his views. Breivik happens to be a Christian. Except I never called Tarrant a "Christian extremist". Coming from you, that's a compliment. Tarrant agreed with Breivik’s views in regards to racial theory and white supremacy. And Breivik is not a Christian but a follower of Germanic neopaganism. I find it astonishing how the likes you and Rizdek and rest of you liberal creeps try to use the Christchurch massacre as an example of extremism for Christianity when A) the perpetrator was not a Christian B) all the evidence points to his murder spree being purely motivated by racism and ethno-nationalism and C) his actions completely contradicts Christian ethics anyway. Yet when it’s Islamists slaughtering people in the name of a religion that calls for the violent subjugation and persecution of non-believers all of sudden it’s “nothing to do with Islam” and “yeah but not all Muslims”. How do you know he does not consider himself a Christian?
It is convenient that NOW that Christians say his kind of brutal slaughter "completely contradicts" Christian ethics when hundreds of years ago that is exactly what Christians did...routinely, ubiquitously and promiscuously. I'm sure THEN, they thought it was completely consistent with Christian ethics. Do you think calling people names when debating them coincides with Christian ethics?
Who has said that radical Islamists aren't doing what they do in the name of religion. The only point I see being made is that it isn't necessary to call them out in the name of religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 4:06:05 GMT
It is uncharacteristic of Clinton and Obama not to be consistent. Thanks for posting the point made from the video with an image. People in this thread seem to believe that Christians are complaining about their religion not being specifically stated alone, but it's more about its inconsistency in contrast with how Islam is stated that's the issue. If you are going to address the attacks of Islam as the "Muslim community" then it would equally be fair and respectful to address the attacks of Christianity as the "Christian community" as well, and not just "Easter worshippers", since Easter isn't a religion and is not what Christians actually worship/practice/celebrate as a whole. Neither Obama or Clinton address Muslims as "Ramadan eaters", as mentioned in the video, so why address Christians as "Easter worshippers?" It shows a clear sign of disrespect towards Christianity. I understand they might have thought since Easter is more universally recognized by many people then that influenced their reasoning to address it more generically, but then who else celebrates Easter at a Christian church other than Christians? It was obviously an attack on Christianity, not just Easter specifically.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 29, 2019 4:38:41 GMT
It is uncharacteristic of Clinton and Obama not to be consistent. Thanks for posting the point made from the video with an image. People in this thread seem to believe that Christians are complaining about their religion not being specifically stated alone, but it's more about its inconsistency in contrast with how Islam is stated that's the issue. If you are going to address the attacks of Islam as the "Muslim community" then it would equally be fair and respectful to address the attacks of Christianity as the "Christian community" as well, and not just "Easter worshippers", since Easter isn't a religion and is not what Christians actually worship/practice/celebrate as a whole. Neither Obama or Clinton address Muslims as "Ramadan eaters", as mentioned in the video, so why address Christians as "Easter worshippers?" It shows a clear sign of disrespect towards Christianity. I understand they might have thought since Easter is more universally recognized by many people then that influenced their reasoning to address it more generically, but then who else celebrates Easter at a Christian church other than Christians? It was obviously an attack on Christianity, not just Easter specifically. There has been a ridiculous focus on the use of the word Easter. The attacks took place on Easter, ergo its usage in the condolances. Did the attacks in New Zealand take place during Ramadan? No.
There was no disrespect given to Christians or Christianity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 5:09:40 GMT
Thanks for posting the point made from the video with an image. People in this thread seem to believe that Christians are complaining about their religion not being specifically stated alone, but it's more about its inconsistency in contrast with how Islam is stated that's the issue. If you are going to address the attacks of Islam as the "Muslim community" then it would equally be fair and respectful to address the attacks of Christianity as the "Christian community" as well, and not just "Easter worshippers", since Easter isn't a religion and is not what Christians actually worship/practice/celebrate as a whole. Neither Obama or Clinton address Muslims as "Ramadan eaters", as mentioned in the video, so why address Christians as "Easter worshippers?" It shows a clear sign of disrespect towards Christianity. I understand they might have thought since Easter is more universally recognized by many people then that influenced their reasoning to address it more generically, but then who else celebrates Easter at a Christian church other than Christians? It was obviously an attack on Christianity, not just Easter specifically. There has been a ridiculous focus on the use of the word Easter. The attacks took place on Easter, ergo its usage in the condolances. Did the attacks in New Zealand take place during Ramadan? No. There was no disrespect given to Christians or Christianity. That's where I would also understand the usage of the term Easter being used here because of it specifically happening on Easter. But it's looking at both of their separate tweets together where the point becomes made. Why mention Islamophobia and the Muslim community when showing condolences towards the victims but not do the same thing towards the attacks towards Christianity? Wouldn't it be disrespectful to only show recognition towards one religion but not the other?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2019 5:37:06 GMT
Thanks for posting the point made from the video with an image. People in this thread seem to believe that Christians are complaining about their religion not being specifically stated alone, but it's more about its inconsistency in contrast with how Islam is stated that's the issue. If you are going to address the attacks of Islam as the "Muslim community" then it would equally be fair and respectful to address the attacks of Christianity as the "Christian community" as well, and not just "Easter worshippers", since Easter isn't a religion and is not what Christians actually worship/practice/celebrate as a whole. Neither Obama or Clinton address Muslims as "Ramadan eaters", as mentioned in the video, so why address Christians as "Easter worshippers?" It shows a clear sign of disrespect towards Christianity. I understand they might have thought since Easter is more universally recognized by many people then that influenced their reasoning to address it more generically, but then who else celebrates Easter at a Christian church other than Christians? It was obviously an attack on Christianity, not just Easter specifically. If it had happened at Xmas, would they then become "Christmas Worshippers"? Easter, as well as Xmas, is about worshiping Christ and comes down to the same thing, the religion of "Christianity". I don't get how some can refute this.
This was a deliberate evasion by Obama and Clinton in some anemic attempt to downplay something. I am not Religious, but I can recognize a cult or following for what it is and correctly address it. The transparency and hypocrisy of the posturing and phony double standards being displayed by these liberal leaders is staggering and I would consider myself liberal over republican any day.
I was actually thinking about Christmas as well. Easter and Christmas may be celebrated and recognized globally by many people, but if there is a terrorist attack or bombing at a Christian church on either of those days then the attack is mainly directed towards the Christians celebrating it, not just any person who celebrates or recognizes it in general. And like you said these are well-known Christian holidays. It definitely could have been done on purpose and wouldn't really be surprised if it was, but it also possibly could just be an honest mistake on their part. They should at least notice these and fix these inconsistencies if it was unintentional.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 29, 2019 8:36:51 GMT
Tarrant agreed with Breivik’s views in regards to racial theory and white supremacy. And Breivik is not a Christian but a follower of Germanic neopaganism. I find it astonishing how the likes you and Rizdek and rest of you liberal creeps try to use the Christchurch massacre as an example of extremism for Christianity when A) the perpetrator was not a Christian B) all the evidence points to his murder spree being purely motivated by racism and ethno-nationalism and C) his actions completely contradicts Christian ethics anyway. Yet when it’s Islamists slaughtering people in the name of a religion that calls for the violent subjugation and persecution of non-believers all of sudden it’s “nothing to do with Islam” and “yeah but not all Muslims”. How do you know he does not consider himself a Christian?
It is convenient that NOW that Christians say his kind of brutal slaughter "completely contradicts" Christian ethics when hundreds of years ago that is exactly what Christians did...routinely, ubiquitously and promiscuously. I'm sure THEN, they thought it was completely consistent with Christian ethics. Do you think calling people names when debating them coincides with Christian ethics?
Who has said that radical Islamists aren't doing what they do in the name of religion. The only point I see being made is that it isn't necessary to call them out in the name of religion.
Tarrant’s response to the question of whether he believed in God or Christianity was “ “complicated. When I know, I will tell you.” Furthermore there is nothing in any of the information gathered on him that suggests he was either a professing or committed Christian. The point is, idiot, whether Christians slaughter people hundreds of years ago or today it completely violates Christian ethics and teachings. Islamists slaughtering non-believers today aligns perfectly with Islamic teachings as that is exactly what they are instructed to do until Islam dominates the world. Let me dumb it down for you even further. Christian slaughtering anybody=Bad Christians. Islamists slaughtering non-believers= Extremely obedient muslims. Muslims don’t just do it in the name of their religion they do it because that is exactly what their religion instructs them to do. Yet the aftermath of each and every Islamic terrorist act gets met with rhetorical distraction about how the perpetrators were not true Muslims and how the attacks had nothing to do with real Islam by the liberal media. Yet for some reason you secular leftists do not seem to find this fact very significant nor all that relevant.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 29, 2019 8:56:41 GMT
There has been a ridiculous focus on the use of the word Easter. The attacks took place on Easter, ergo its usage in the condolances. Did the attacks in New Zealand take place during Ramadan? No. There was no disrespect given to Christians or Christianity. That's where I would also understand the usage of the term Easter being used here because of it specifically happening on Easter. But it's looking at both of their separate tweets together where the point becomes made. Why mention Islamophobia and the Muslim community when showing condolences towards the victims but not do the same thing towards the attacks towards Christianity? Wouldn't it be disrespectful to only show recognition towards one religion but not the other? I think picking fault because the term "Muslim community" was used when something like "Christian community" was not is an attempt to find fault where none exists. It is an attempt to be divisive which is just the opposite of what the world needs at times like this. People like Ben Shapiro and those who find merit in what he says should be ashamed. And for the record only Hillary used the word Islamophobia, not both of them.
The attack in New Zealand had a clearer and more defined target than those in Sri Lanka which also included hotels. When these condolence messages were sent it was unclear who was responsible and what their motive might be. I saw speculation that the tourism industry was the main thing being attacked. It was not clear that Christians were targeted just because they were Christians. But Christianity was identified since Christians are directly mentioned as victims.
The whole point Shapiro is attempting to make is quite inline with the mantra of far too many in the American right-wing, that people are losing their quality of life to immigrants and that Muslim immigrants are dangerous. With no evidence President trump has claimed that Muslim terrorists are attempting to sneak across the Mexican border by hiding in caravans. So the right-wing vilifies those who push back against such sentiments. here we have an attempt to say there is a preferential bias against Christians and for Muslims for which there is no evidence, so they create evidence out of whole cloth.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2019 9:06:44 GMT
Thanks for posting the point made from the video with an image. People in this thread seem to believe that Christians are complaining about their religion not being specifically stated alone, but it's more about its inconsistency in contrast with how Islam is stated that's the issue. If you are going to address the attacks of Islam as the "Muslim community" then it would equally be fair and respectful to address the attacks of Christianity as the "Christian community" as well, and not just "Easter worshippers", since Easter isn't a religion and is not what Christians actually worship/practice/celebrate as a whole. Neither Obama or Clinton address Muslims as "Ramadan eaters", as mentioned in the video, so why address Christians as "Easter worshippers?" It shows a clear sign of disrespect towards Christianity. I understand they might have thought since Easter is more universally recognized by many people then that influenced their reasoning to address it more generically, but then who else celebrates Easter at a Christian church other than Christians? It was obviously an attack on Christianity, not just Easter specifically. There has been a ridiculous focus on the use of the word Easter. The attacks took place on Easter, ergo its usage in the condolances. Did the attacks in New Zealand take place during Ramadan? No.
There was no disrespect given to Christians or Christianity.
It was the first time I saw anyone describing Christians as "Easter worshipers". Admittedly English is not my first language but it felt weird to me. I don't remember anyone calling the victims of the 2015 Mecca stampede "Hajj worshipers" or the victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting as "Sabbath worshipers".
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 29, 2019 10:38:02 GMT
THAT part of it, at least seems a silly quibble.
The degree to which, and how. the world at large calls out specific religions as the basis for terrorism isn't a quibble. But I think it needs to be done diplomatically. Given that ~1/4 the worlds population is Muslim, that means there are 1.75 billion Muslims. Clearly they ALL aren't out committing terrorism. In fact, that means there are probably well over 1.7 billion who are living peacefully. Clearly Islam has its radical elements just like Christians have their radical elements. The background of [one of] the perpetrators in the mosque attacks in New Zealand makes it clear he was doing it on behalf of Christians/Christianity. Yet I wouldn't hold Christians or Christianity in general as responsible for that attack. AFAIK, no public official specifically names Christianity or Christians in condemning those who attacked the mosques.
The problem I see with the Shapiros of the world...wishing to call out Islam and Muslims specifically is that I don't see how it helps anything. For me, anyways, I think it all comes down to how can the rest of the world support and encourage the moderate and peaceful Muslims? Maybe it's by clearly identifying when some terrorists are doing it in the name of Islam. I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that those who respond like Hillary and Obama aren't doing it JUST to irritate Christians and protect radical Muslims, but rather it's because they are trying to minimize the importance of the Islam religion in these terrorists attacks vs the fact that there are radical elements of all worldviews...Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. As I have said elsewhere, naming Islam in these extremists attacks only lends strength to THEIR cause...the cause of the radical Islamic terrorists...they WANT to be seen as radical...radical in their fight for their version of God. The other Muslims would probably rather NOT be associated with these terrorists attacks so are chagrined when it is pointed out that these extremists are doing it "in the name of God." So I don't see it as hypocrisy but at trying to be diplomatic. At worst it might be a mistake, but best it might be a better approach than the approach Shapiro and the dude hosting the video.
Nice post! Personally, I do see the best approach is to call something for what it is, especially regarding religion, be it so-called 'peaceful', or extremist approach. This way, it at least draws attention to any hypocrisies and contradictions from any stance, rather than masking them and being sheep in wolves clothing. That is phony and insincere and this is why the liberal stance and approach gets called out upon and I am more liberal in my political views than right sided. I am not certain HOW to best deal with a religion that continues to retain the barbarism that used to permeate Christianity and Judaism but that does not operate from a specific geographical location. Perhaps calling them out in the name of Islam IS the way...to "shame" the moderates into either finding another religion or striving towards being more moderate. Getting them to leave Islam seems unlikely and Islam is among the fastest growing ideologies.
But I think that calling it calling it out as Islam is exactly what the perpetrators WANT the world to do. This article bears this out:
The article talks about the uptick in terrorism attacks epitomized by the Sri Lanka atrocity.
So the "calling them out as Muslims" is making them think they are being successful. They are fighting for the minds of disillusioned youth. They hope to kindle hatred and don't seem to care if it is hatred against them. They think their God wishes them to be apart from the world and is happy with their terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Apr 29, 2019 11:23:54 GMT
I try to avoid watching any political videos on YouTube which contains the words “destroy” or “destroys” in the title.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2019 11:30:10 GMT
I try to avoid watching any political videos on YouTube which contains the words “destroy” or “destroys” in the title. Shapiro followers have a tendency to use that word to describe Ben Shapiro giving his opinion on something.
|
|