It sure is incredible that we're at the point where they're almost spelling it out and so many people still refuse to see it. I'm almost certain that even if they would go on live television and openly say it without any possibility of misunderstanding it the sheep would still just baa and pretend to be deaf.
It's a religion. Blind, fanatical faith that doesn't waver even if they get their head bashed in and their corpse raped by a nigger on the street.
Imagine holding a belief so deeply that it informs your every decision. At first, with some help from the mainstream media and academia, you're able to convince yourself that it's working; the economy is good, you've got exotic food and, gosh darn it, you just feel like a good person.
And the sacrifice isn't much. Maybe you don't like all the food, but you put up with it. Certain people act weird but they're new, they'll learn. You aren't allowed to celebrate your own culture in public places anymore, but we can celebrate every culture instead. You're willing to make those sacrifices becasue you're a good person.
Then it escalates. Half the grocery store is filled with inedible foreign slop. Ethnic gangs talk shit as you walk by in languages you don't understand. Every culture but yours is celebrated; yours is actively attacked by your own media and government. But surely that isn't the fault of these newcomers? The government just isn't doing enough to help them integrate. We'll just sacrifice a few billion dollars here and there for acclimation programs.
Now we're here. Your kids don't learn math because they don't understand the teacher's accent. There are "no go" zones where people like you aren't welcome. Your culture is gone outside of a few fanatics. Courts openly favour anyone who isn't like you.
What's easier? Continuing to blame the government and minimizing your own destruction? Or admitting that you aren't a good person, were never a good person, and were in fact tricked?
This is Western Izzat. Our "face" is tolerance. We cannot admit that we are wrong and, if anyone else does, it shames us to the point where we have to eliminate them.
Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
Nor should they. Everyone should be loud and proud about their beliefs. Subterfuge and hidden motives tend to be malicious in nature, and we'd have a heck of an easier time educating the populace if all the quiet backstabby lying types instead just said their intentions in as clear English as the redditheist.
My personal view is we had a half-dozen or so people who actually knew some inkling of SOME intentions of God, and those fractions of intent were then told, re-told, re-told, re-told, translated, re-told, translated, re-told again, and localized five times in the process, and we all know how good a job localizers do.
The double standard on this is actually really annoying, and a big part of what makes atheists who bother speaking up so militant.
In almost any context, the religious can bring up their beliefs and espouse them ad nauseum. They can tell you how their morals and eorldviews are shaped by it, and how you should contort your own to fit. They'll tell you, with great confidence, about the history of the universe and how reality itself functions, as described in their holy book(s).
And this is all generally seen as perfectly normal and correct. The only push-back you might expect to get is from people who either have a different religion, or come from a different sect or denomination of your own, and that pushback is most often of the sort that goes "no, sky king said not to eat the green round pickles on Thursdays. The green square pickles are perfectly fine!".
And then the atheist pipes up with some banal and milquetoast "I think that sounds like a load of rubbish", and suddenly the metaphorical (or literal, if you're arguing with mudslimes) knives come out.
Honestly, the militancy of the people who bother arguing against religiosity online shouldn't be remotely suprising. You filter out the conflict averse by the sheer amount of bullying they get, and all you end up left with are the people both willing and able to tell you to get fucked, as well as an axe to grind on the issue.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
That's a weird question to ask about a crime that took place in a constitutional monarchy with some democratic features.
It can be your opinion that the government is lying and Rudakubana actually had a political motive. But you'd just be making shit up in your own head to feel like a big bad rebel.
They're the people who had access to Rudakubana. Skepticism is a good thing, but in this case, if you ascribe any other motive to him, you're literally just making shit up for fun.
In October 2024, Rudakubana was charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Act 2000 for possession and production of ricin and a PDF copy of a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual.
Edit: Just a propos of nothing, he was referred several times to the Prevent program, who also determined that he "had no motive" and so took no action. They could have prevented this horrific act but because he didn't make spicy facebook posts, they did nothing instead.
Its so deranged when Starmer came out so brazenly in the pocket for Jews. How can any self-respecting brit not see whats happening by now?
It sure is incredible that we're at the point where they're almost spelling it out and so many people still refuse to see it. I'm almost certain that even if they would go on live television and openly say it without any possibility of misunderstanding it the sheep would still just baa and pretend to be deaf.
It's a religion. Blind, fanatical faith that doesn't waver even if they get their head bashed in and their corpse raped by a nigger on the street.
I get it. It's sunk cost fallacy.
Imagine holding a belief so deeply that it informs your every decision. At first, with some help from the mainstream media and academia, you're able to convince yourself that it's working; the economy is good, you've got exotic food and, gosh darn it, you just feel like a good person.
And the sacrifice isn't much. Maybe you don't like all the food, but you put up with it. Certain people act weird but they're new, they'll learn. You aren't allowed to celebrate your own culture in public places anymore, but we can celebrate every culture instead. You're willing to make those sacrifices becasue you're a good person.
Then it escalates. Half the grocery store is filled with inedible foreign slop. Ethnic gangs talk shit as you walk by in languages you don't understand. Every culture but yours is celebrated; yours is actively attacked by your own media and government. But surely that isn't the fault of these newcomers? The government just isn't doing enough to help them integrate. We'll just sacrifice a few billion dollars here and there for acclimation programs.
Now we're here. Your kids don't learn math because they don't understand the teacher's accent. There are "no go" zones where people like you aren't welcome. Your culture is gone outside of a few fanatics. Courts openly favour anyone who isn't like you.
What's easier? Continuing to blame the government and minimizing your own destruction? Or admitting that you aren't a good person, were never a good person, and were in fact tricked?
This is Western Izzat. Our "face" is tolerance. We cannot admit that we are wrong and, if anyone else does, it shames us to the point where we have to eliminate them.
Feels like a combination of various chains of thoughts:
Terrorism is a crime of motive. Axel Rudakubana's motive was that he wanted to kill as many people as possible, and he thought a Taylor Swift dance workshop would be a great place to find the weakest people possible, who couldn't stop him.
That's horrific, and he fully deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but part of the legal definition in the UK is that terrorism must be an action that pursues a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause. Rudakubana didn't have any cause like that; he just wanted to bathe in blood.
We could rewrite the laws and extend the definition of terrorism, sure, but if terrorism just becomes synonymous with any violence, why even have the word anymore? We already have names for violent crimes.
Mindreader?
No, months of interviews with detectives and forensic psychologists, who then reported their findings to the press.
months of interviews with UK police who have for 50 years searched for any reason to ignore and downplay muslim crimes?
THAT’s literally the source you trust.
The same source that called him a Welsh Choirboy, that refused to publish that he had an Al Queada manual and Ricin?
edit: and the same police that was busy attending a gay pride march when the stabbings happened
So far since he's been on this board I've only seen him whine about Christianity and spew apologetics for mohammadans and pedophiles.
I just saw his defense of the jeet kidnapper
Right? So blatant I found myself wondering if it's Imp on another alt now that he finally got banned from anywhere with an audience.
If so, it must be taking all his meager willpower to hold back from ranting about natalism.
Why would I whine about Christianity? Religion is suited only for drooling retards, but that's not a whine - it's a simple observation.
Case in point. No atheist, ever, has been able to keep his atheautism to himself.
As an atheist i can say we aren’t all like… oh wait im proving your point :-(
Nor should they. Everyone should be loud and proud about their beliefs. Subterfuge and hidden motives tend to be malicious in nature, and we'd have a heck of an easier time educating the populace if all the quiet backstabby lying types instead just said their intentions in as clear English as the redditheist.
My personal view is we had a half-dozen or so people who actually knew some inkling of SOME intentions of God, and those fractions of intent were then told, re-told, re-told, re-told, translated, re-told, translated, re-told again, and localized five times in the process, and we all know how good a job localizers do.
Somewhat of a fallacy since anyone that does proves the point, and those who don't remain an unknown value to be ignored when discussing things.
The double standard on this is actually really annoying, and a big part of what makes atheists who bother speaking up so militant.
In almost any context, the religious can bring up their beliefs and espouse them ad nauseum. They can tell you how their morals and eorldviews are shaped by it, and how you should contort your own to fit. They'll tell you, with great confidence, about the history of the universe and how reality itself functions, as described in their holy book(s).
And this is all generally seen as perfectly normal and correct. The only push-back you might expect to get is from people who either have a different religion, or come from a different sect or denomination of your own, and that pushback is most often of the sort that goes "no, sky king said not to eat the green round pickles on Thursdays. The green square pickles are perfectly fine!".
And then the atheist pipes up with some banal and milquetoast "I think that sounds like a load of rubbish", and suddenly the metaphorical (or literal, if you're arguing with mudslimes) knives come out.
Honestly, the militancy of the people who bother arguing against religiosity online shouldn't be remotely suprising. You filter out the conflict averse by the sheer amount of bullying they get, and all you end up left with are the people both willing and able to tell you to get fucked, as well as an axe to grind on the issue.
Eh?
You sound like you're 12.
I'm an atheist and you're just fucking embarrassing. You are a midwit that doesn't know what he doesn't know.
And you sound like a lonely faggot who wants to suck up to insane people because he can't find real friends.
No, it's the source that determines whether he's a terrorist. What I personally trust doesn't matter here. If the police find that his motive was political, religious, racial, or ideological, they charge it as terrorism. If they find that his motive was something else, they don't.
And if all violence is terrorism, then there's no need to ever use the word terrorism.
Now, you might argue that there is no need to ever use the word terrorism - and you wouldn't get much argument from me. If you murder someone and get sent to prison for life, does it really matter how we label the murder? It's the same prison either way.
So basically the UK police with a long established history of ignoring leftwing violence and Muslim terrorism get to decide your opinion. Terrorism isn't violence, it's the posts on social media that make our minority groups look bad that is terrorism. /s
Then shut up. Don't post. The government can advocate just fine for itself, it doesn't need unthinking parrots on message boards.
Do you not understand how democracy works?
That's a weird question to ask about a crime that took place in a constitutional monarchy with some democratic features.
It can be your opinion that the government is lying and Rudakubana actually had a political motive. But you'd just be making shit up in your own head to feel like a big bad rebel.
Imagine trusting government employees in britbongistan, of all places.
Ah, experts, the people we need to trust. GOT IT!
They're the people who had access to Rudakubana. Skepticism is a good thing, but in this case, if you ascribe any other motive to him, you're literally just making shit up for fun.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
In October 2024, Rudakubana was charged under the Biological Weapons Act 1974 and Terrorism Act 2000 for possession and production of ricin and a PDF copy of a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual.
Look at his post history, he's a MGTOW faggot who denounces whites and Christians all day.
Probably a jeet.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26072585.met-police-accused-airbrushing-stabbing-third-man/
He stabbed THREE non- jewish people before this incident.
(2 some years prior. 1 on the same day)
Were any of those part of this “terrorisms” attack?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26072585.met-police-accused-airbrushing-stabbing-third-man/
Whose blood, specifically?
The finding of the police was that he wanted to bathe in any blood, and preferred soft targets.
Source?
Edit: Just a propos of nothing, he was referred several times to the Prevent program, who also determined that he "had no motive" and so took no action. They could have prevented this horrific act but because he didn't make spicy facebook posts, they did nothing instead.
The UK government is more the enemy of its people than the invaders. The invaders are just the weapon.
help! police! a jew was disrespected!