UnSubRocky wrote on May 10
th, 2019 at 8:51pm:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 10
th, 2019 at 9:17am:
P.S. your very use of the term 'insensitive' means you are discussing a feeling and not a fact.... feelings are not facts in that sense... amazing how such nonsense has become the norm under a feminist sky ..... can't argue the point so we'll argue some alleged feeling...
Emotional considerations come in to play when you factor in that most Muslims are not going on terror attacks or sympathising with the terrorists. An alleged retaliatory attack by a non-Muslim must still be put into the context of it being a terror attack. The victims have families. The victims have friends. The victims have co-workers. Plus, this gets put into the context that the attacker hit the victims when they were at their least prepared. If that is not irritating enough to piss off hundreds of millions of Muslims, I don't know what is. But, for Anning to come out and act as if the victims would not have been victims had they not migrated to New Zealand, that is something that crosses the line and does not stop. Well, yeah, that would not have been victims. But, the victims have not done anything close that deserves them being made victims of some deluded white nationalist.
I recall some Mufti saying that Australian women who dress immodestly are deserving of being raped. That pissed a lot of Australians off. But, imagine if some Muslim walked into a church one Sunday morning and starting shooting up the congregation with automatic weaponry. In this hypothetical, a Muslim politician from overseas starts making comment that whilst he is sympathetic to the victims, the victims would not have been victims had they not migrated to Australia and stole aboriginal land. Could *emotion* NOT come into consideration when dealing with insensitive comments?
Sri Lanka is undergoing problems with the non-Muslim community causing chaos against Muslims in retaliatory strikes. I doubt being politically correct comes into force there, either.
**coughs** as for your basic premise - that any terrorist act is a terrorist act... when have I said anything different?
As for comparison with a politician from anywhere else - it is still not an unreasonable thing to say that such an event was inevitable given the current climate worldwide and the predominance of such acts by Muslims.
I'm sure there are countless Muslim politicians who will say that the Sri Lankan murders were inevitable, given the enduring conflict between Muslims and others worldwide.
that, by no means, offers justification for the murders.
I will say, here and now, and will repeat following the next atrocity, that it was inevitable given the never-ending and ongoing problems between Muslims and everyone else, and that while ever any group, defined by its personal beliefs, carries out atrocities, it is inevitable that someone will respond in kind.
You will note (I doubt it) that I place no value judgement on any atrocity - but treat them all equally.... and say that a Muslim response and a Keffir response are equally inevitable... given the state of war between Islam and the Rest Of the World that does not embrace Islam.
As a society/nation - we can only determine the general impact and responsibility by looking at the number of such events from either side - and at this time, the predominance of murders rests with Muslims, and thus a further series of responses is inevitable from the Keffir, and that will lead to a further series of responses.
You chasing me and me chasing you until there is nobody left standing....
Stupid as - but that's the way the first offenders play the game..... and thus must bear the impact of response.