And in this analogy of yours, which side is supposed to be attached to the ISIS supporter?
At least it finally makes sense as to why some people disregard Interpol data saying that Islamic terrorism is in the stark minority of terrorist attacks in Europe. If you disregard separatists and the like you do arrive at the data point that is convenient for you!
The guy is not a terrorist, he's just a racist xenophobe. It doesn't make it any better, and it may even be worse. Instead of having a political ideology to push, he's just a hateful bigot with a gun. There's millions of people like him in this country. Luckily, not that many have taken it upon themselves to actually shoot brown people.
So, what was he supposed to do to be a real terrorist?
Scream "Allahu Akbar"?
Cause I feel that If he was a muslim shooting people at a gay club you would be calling terrorist, right?
Terror is terror, no matter who's the perpetrator.
Someone already defined terrorism on this topic, by the way. You should check it out!
Last edited by toxicrusader; 2017-02-26 at 02:42 PM.
OK, do explain how left is supposed to be attached to a right wing fundamentalist just because the religion of said fundamentalist is not the most common one in the country. And even if we went with your tangent, you'd have left whitewashing someone otherwise unaffiliated with them for whatever reason vs the alt-right distancing themselves from someone espousing their own views, which, contrary to your initial post, isn't particularly equivalent.
Both extremes are unwilling to talk about Islam, the far left is too lenient towards it and not willing to look for solutions and the same goes for the far right, all they want to do is label it and not look for solutions either, unless it comes out of a playbook from the second world war.
The center right and left is more than willing to talk about it but both sides constantly need to deal with retarded and childish nonsense created by politicians like Le Penn, wilders and even Trump that make any sensible debate on how to decrease radicalization on a national level near impossible since it gets reduced to silly buzzwords and during all that time nothing is done and radicalization keeps on spreading like a wild fire.
The only way to bring religion in line is the same way we did it in europe with christianity. Build official groups around it, let it exist but control it, control what is said in mosques like it happened in churches and control what is taught in schools again same thing done to the other major religion present in the western world. People need to realize that this problem cannot be simply fixed externally we need to deal with it internally as well, But it does require people to accept there are problems with it and also require people to accept that not every muslim is a terrorist and silly one liners like religion of peace is a good example of how fools dumb this debate down constantly.
OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."
And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"
You implied that because he claimed terrorism is religiously motivated, that he was claiming the IRA are not terrorists. But if IRA isn't religiously motivated then that makes everyone who holds them up as an example of radical Christianity into a massive hypocrite.
OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."
And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"
I'm very well of the definition of terrorist. I don't give a damn if people call this guy a terrorist or not. To me, the issue is actually worse, because it's a latent mentality of millions of Americans. Now, I'm not saying they will all act on it, but there is plenty of silent agreement with what this guy did.