Are you at risk of being radicalised?

The world deals with muslim countries.
Some of these are supposed to be our friends. Like Saudi Arabia, the people who brought you 9/11.
We can't condemn islam in another country we don't get along with, without spitting in the face of our phony friends.
This is the very reason why msm doesnt condemn islam

 

The increase in terrorizing from the nationalists?

 

I doubt any are friends. Some we allow to be radical and violent, because they have something we want or let us use their resources for your gain.
Even though Bush2 kissed the prince alot.

 

So which was it?

Was it an excuse, just as when Western Progs made excuses for Religion of Peace terrorism (it's America's fault ..la la la)? Because you know that making excuses for terrorism is way waaaay worse than just about anything short of actual terrorism.

 

Certainly random civilians praying arent responsible.

I do not think being a refugee is a good reason to let you in on the other side of the planet. There are 200 safe countries between there and here.

I support immigration at a level that encourages assimilation and discourages culture shock and self-segregation.

The Islam v Christianity stuff is nonsense, most of us are not Christian anyway. Those who are don't actually believe most of it, they are chill. They mix the colours in their fabrics. They aren't on holy wars.

 

From what I've heard, he was wealthy after investing in cryptocurrencies, and was traveling the world. Was he lonely? Highly doubtful since western women flock to NZ to see how many transient guys they can have sex with. The next time you see a kiwi fruit, just realize that it was probably picked by some R selected nothingburger millenial who is spending a year in NZ so they can have sex with anybody, and then go back home to tell their parents they had a simply marvelous time experiencing the beauty of NZ.

He certainly wasn't low income, lonely, or disenfranchised from society. In fact, you have absolutely zero evidence that he was any of that. Just...

umm... a lefty, and we all know how closely you boyahs follow the facts of anything.

lol!!!!

 

Of course not. They even tried to blame that one on the gay, so reluctant were they to attribute blame where it should lie. So even when they're forced to acknowledge these events, they'll find work arounds. It's so grotesque that it actually makes me feel a little sick.

 

It may be nonsense to us, but it isn't to them.

All of this group hugging is completely one sided.

 

Pragmatists don't invest any time in checking to see how the world is appreciating them. They're too busy being pragmatic (ie, engaged in the business of survival).

 

Working in the Pakistani community, are they?

 

So he was having a great sex life?
I say he was disenfranchised from society.
He seemed deeply involved in online society, and distant from real human contract.
Terrorists who are lone wolf types do not fit well in normal society.
https://www.businessinsider.com/new...ng-suspect-online-clues-radicalization-2019-3

 

Valid according to who?

EVERY radical thinks their cause is valid. NONE think theirs is fake.

Psych 101, dear.

 

Well thats a great way to convince people isnt it, insulting their intelligence.

On the contrary, I am well aware of the crusades. My point was that no Christians these days care at all about any of this. They are chill. A transformation Islam definitely needs to go through too.

 

I don't know about that and it is some time since I looked into it. Most of our 'deradicalisation' programs come under the heading of 'prevent' which is now aimed at the far right as well as Muslims. The one activity which was found to bring definite positive results was counselling. If, when they first thought someone was going off, they offered them counselling then that had a very high chance of getting them back on track. The government removed funding for it. From what I remember the UK goes crazy about this, Lecturers have to grass on their students - which is not just against academic freedom but takes away one of the avenues most likely to lead to them changing direction. Teachers have to grass on their pupils which has amounted to 5 year olds being seen to need deradicalization! Again though, it is a few years since I looked into it. At that time certainly in the US they were understanding that Muslim terrorism is just like any other form of terrorism, it is motivated by political not religious reasons.

Now of course it will have changed as white nationalists are becoming a much stronger focus. One thing I think it shows is that there was a big failure in antiracist teaching - on the very simple level that people were not taught or did not understand the very basis of it - stereotyping all people of a particular ethnicity to be the same and that to be based on a negative stereotype.

I think probably good counselling as was seen to work in Prevent would be the most effective for genuine change and I would say that ought to be of the person centred kind...but the Government of course found that too expensive. Effective solutions are often not the cheapest.

 

Absolutely not. That wouldnt fit the narrative of the violent leftist extremists.

 

Want
To make a bet?

Even these replies show one of the defining characteristics

Belief that one is somehow being targeted for “injustices”

http://www.eip.org/en/news-events/eip-explainer-understanding-radicalisation

 

Why are nationalist prone to terrorism any more than anti abortion people, anti gun people anti tax anti welfare ant nanny state or the opposite from the political spectrum. I am a staunch nationalist, america first person I can't see how love of country and my belief in our government's actions should benefit our citizens before citizens of other countries would lead to terrorism. I would think that during the 50s America was much more American centric than what they are now with less examples of violence.

 

Hmm, what do those nations have in common?

 

Not gun laws. They vary quite a bit. Switzerland and Norway have different gun laws than the EU countries but the same regionally low crime.

 

Only the second post and already we have the radicalization in real time.

 

Not sure, but judging from the fact that each Christchurch-type killing spawns a series of threads and posts on this forum sympathetic to the killer's ideology and each Pulse Nightclub-type attack doesn't, the question about radicalization is pertinent. I haven't seen any jihadists on the forums and only one Muslim. I've seen plenty of white nationalists, though.

 

Yes, but then it would have been morphed into 'Are you so racist, and bigoted and just EVIL that you blame all innocent Muslim Extremist Groups (leftists look at them as freedom fighters) for what ONE isolated lone Extremest decided to do all on his own?"

 

Good to know I'm a budding extremist simply because I'm white. I guess I need to buy more guns and fertilizer and rebel flags so I can be a better target for the violent left's bigotry.

 

Interesting. I've seen many threads rationalizing terrorists and none from white nationalists. Maybe it's because you only see workplace violence when a Muslim does it and therefore it's not really terrorism. But if a white person does the same thing, you immediately say all white people are to blame