"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As said, going back to the original point, The Daily Mail seem to be handling this case in a different way compared to how they usually deal with things.

But who cares?.....the Daily Mail has a rather unpleasant political agenda. Since when was that news.

The assumption that the Daily Mail won't call this out as a terrorist act (which it isn't) when it did with Lee Rigby, and it's attempt to pin it on immigrants (Mair feared losing his council house to migrant family apparently). This is all predicated on the assumption that anyone should take their cues from the Daily Mail.

[Power n Glory]

But who cares?.....the Daily Mail has a rather unpleasant political agenda. Since when was that news.

The assumption that the Daily Mail won't call this out as a terrorist act (which it isn't) when it did with Lee Rigby, and it's attempt to pin it on immigrants (Mair feared losing his council house to migrant family apparently). This is all predicated on the assumption that anyone should take their cues from the Daily Mail.

I think you've run off on a tangent. It's how this whole conversation started and why I posted the piece from The Guardian in the first place.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I think you've run off on a tangent. It's how this whole conversation started and why I posted the piece from The Guardian in the first place.

I'm well aware how the conversation started. My point from the beginning is that that particular argument was irrelevant in my opinion

Additionally the left in many respects are just as bad using that line of argument, and are afraid to point out that whilst acts of islamic terrorism aren't representative of all muslims to try and suggest as they do that it has no direct connection with Islam is untrue.

When people seek to justify their violent tendencies, it's helpful that a nihilistic religion exists in order for them to do so. Islam unlike Christianity hasn't gone through the same pacification process to the point where most Christians are dilettantes and pick and choose which biblical passages should be considered true, and which should conveniently should be treated as metaphor.

[Power n Glory]

I'm well aware how the conversation started. My point from the beginning is that that particular argument was irrelevant in my opinion

Additionally the left in many respects are just as bad using that line of argument, and are afraid to point out that whilst acts of islamic terrorism aren't representative of all muslims to try and suggest as they do that it has no direct connection with Islam is untrue.

When people seek to justify their violent tendencies, it's helpful that a nihilistic religion exists in order for them to do so. Islam unlike Christianity hasn't gone through the same pacification process to the point where most Christians are dilettantes and pick and choose which biblical passages should be considered true, and which should conveniently should be treated as metaphor.

Your point from the beginning was kind of irrelevant to what was originally posted if we're looking at it that way.

Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie View Post
I didnt regard the killing of Lee Rigby or Jo Cox as acts of terrorism, I consider them both acts of senseless murder perpetrated by brain dead atavistic losers who above all sought notoriety, and the so called "political motivation" might have governed who they killed but largely was a justification for a need to act violently.

Of course you can make that argument about all terrorist acts, but ultimately I think what's important is to deny these individuals credence to be regarded as political martyrs. They are maladjusted sociopaths who deserve punishment for their brutality and should not be seen as worthy of any great analysis.

I'm talking more of a double standard with reporting, especially the Daily Mail, but I hear your point.

You've kind of runaway with your own thoughts on this one but it's cool.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Your point from the beginning was kind of irrelevant to what was originally posted if we're looking at it that way.

If you like, as a point of reference I read that very Guardian article yesterday and yesterday like today I didn't find it having anything worthwhile to say.

It makes the point that there is more focus on acts of terror committed in the name of Islam than for far right purposes

End of the day why wouldn't the Daily Mail do that?.......demographically the vast majority of it's readers are going to be white, whether you encourage it or not they are going to be more threatened by violence committed by people that don't look like them, don't sound like them etc.

[Niall_Quinn]

Again i state that stating that these "guys" have a screw loose mitigates for their actions when none exist.

I accept that you believe that the state is either directly or indirectly responsible for all of this (I don't), and I reject any suggestion that these individuals are products of their environment and would be redeemable in some other society you deem more befitting of human existence.

Are you making a religious argument here?

[Power n Glory]

If you like, as a point of reference I read that very Guardian article yesterday and yesterday like today I didn't find it having anything worthwhile to say.

It makes the point that there is more focus on acts of terror committed in the name of Islam than for far right purposes

End of the day why wouldn't the Daily Mail do that?.......demographically the vast majority of it's readers are going to be white, whether you encourage it or not they are going to be more threatened by violence committed by people that don't look like them, don't sound like them etc.

But the piece sort of covered that with the below in the closing paragraph.

So it is even more important that the media, which prides itself on real, not fake news, does not hide the true story – however unpleasant or contrary to their own worldview it might be.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

But the piece sort of covered that with the below in the closing paragraph.

But i don't agree with that closing point in the sense that any of the media have shown any capability of expressing the true story, the point is both the Mail and The Guardian are equally guilty of running a narrative, totally separate narratives.

The article immediately dismisses the credibility of the source that Mair had any concern over losing his council home to migrants because it wanted to pursue the white supremacist angle. And the Mail wanted to push the multiculturalism is pushing people to breaking point angle but it didn't have the courage of it's convictions to do so on it's front page.

My point is the simple true story when we divest it of supposition, is that a man killed a woman and he's going to prison for it. I personally believe that no other context needs to be explored and that has been my point from the outset.

[Kano]

But i don't agree with that closing point in the sense that any of the media have shown any capability of expressing the true story, the point is both the Mail and The Guardian are equally guilty of running a narrative, totally separate narratives.

The article immediately dismisses the credibility of the source that Mair had any concern over losing his council home to migrants because it wanted to pursue the white supremacist angle. And the Mail wanted to push the multiculturalism is pushing people to breaking point angle but it didn't have the courage of it's convictions to do so on it's front page.

My point is the simple true story when we divest it of supposition, is that a man killed a woman and he's going to prison for it. I personally believe that no other context needs to be explored and that has been my point from the outset.

There's always context. And it's always important. It doesn't always have to be attached to a belief or cause. Reason is just as valid. Otherwise all of our actions would be singular and without meaning. But that isn't the problem here. The issue, as always, is how this is reported, the wider bullshit framework either side of the MSM are pinning this to and the narrative people continue to allow themselves to be tricked into.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

There's always context. And it's always important. It doesn't always have to be attached to a belief or cause. Reason is just as valid. Otherwise all of our actions would be singular and without meaning. But that isn't the problem here. The issue, as always, is how this is reported, the wider bullshit framework either side of the MSM are pinning this to and the narrative people continue to allow themselves to be tricked into.

The context is clearly that this man killed someone to get attention. That's why he refused to enter a plea at his court hearing. In that sense any other analysis of what motivated this man is a capitulation to him.

All I see is attributing his actions to a political ideology or any other reasons reduces his agency, he wasn't compelled to kill he chose to kill.

The only real punishment befitting of a man like that is for him to be ignored. Locking him away is for our own protection.