[Igor Antunov]

How wasteful. Just throw them into thermal power generators. Their burning fat could fuel cities for decades.

[Rich]

If people really feel that there's a problem with extremist Islamosceptics as one of the pioneers of the Islamosceptic movement I'd be very happy to take part in some kind of prevent strategy for Islamosceptics. You see I would say to any young man tempted to an extremist action like this, if you want to commit a brave act of resistance, just go into the local high street and burn a Koran.

Our cultural Marxist over lords have spent the years since 9/11 trying to silence moderate Islamosceptic voices like myself and now these Liberal hypocrites have the front to start whining about Islamosceptic extremism. In the late 90s I became sceptical of Islam's ability to evolve, like nearly all other religions. I have received massive vindication by the last couple of decades.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

That's fair and I agree that she could have worded it better, but the larger point that mainstream Islamophobia (not just far-right murderers) contribute to thinking this stuff is OK.

Whoever thinks mass murder or terror is OK is not going to take his cues from the mainstream.

The US, with the most relaxed speech and gun laws, doesn't seem to have more attacks that target Muslims than other western countries which are far stricter in both areas. I'm interested in this supposed mainstream Islamophobia though. Can you give me some examples?

The "west" has been waging a war against muslims for a few decades now. I don't think Chelsea Clinton is anywhere near to blame for this, but like I mentioned earlier her and other liberals bullshit condolences are obviously going to upset people who know what they really stand for, especially in this case where it's a muslim woman.

Nobody is waging war against Muslims, but even if they were, Chelsea Clinton has never had a hand in it. What is she supposed to do when invited to a vigil? Are basic manners now offensive to lefties?

[Pants-of-dog]

Whoever thinks mass murder or terror is OK is not going to take his cues from the mainstream.

Why not?

It is not difficult to convince the majority to support things like genocide and attacks against civilians.

Most US citizens have no problem with Shock and Awe, or supporting Saudi Arabia in its oppression.

The only difference between this and other attacks against Muslims (that have been supported by large portions of conservatives) is the degree of harm.

The US, with the most relaxed speech and gun laws, doesn't seem to have more attacks that target Muslims than other western countries which are far stricter in both areas. I'm interested in this supposed mainstream Islamophobia though. Can you give me some examples?

Trump’s Muslim ban.

Nobody is waging war against Muslims, but even if they were, Chelsea Clinton has never had a hand in it. What is she supposed to do when invited to a vigil? Are basic manners now offensive to lefties?

Yes, many countries are currently bombing Muslim majority countires, or have done so in the last decade or two. While Ms. Clinton may not have personally had a hand in it, her parents did (assum8ng she is the daughter of Billary). Since her parents were directly involved in war campaigns that killed Muslim innocents, it seems hypocritical on the part of the Clintons to pretend that it is a bad thing when non-government actors do the same thing.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It is not difficult to convince the majority to support things like genocide and attacks against civilians.

It seems we are now in conspiracy theory territory. Please provide evidence that majorities in western countries can easily be convinced to support genocide or terror attacks against civilians. Thanks.

Most US citizens have no problem with Shock and Awe, or supporting Saudi Arabia in its oppression. The only difference between this and other attacks against Muslims (that have been supported by large portions of conservatives) is the degree of harm.

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country.

Western countries have not attempted genocide or targeted civilians in their military operations. In fact, they usually try to minimise civilian casualties, although not always successfully.

Trump’s Muslim ban.

There was never a Muslim ban.

Yes, many countries are currently bombing Muslim majority countires, or have done so in the last decade or two. While Ms. Clinton may not have personally had a hand in it, her parents did (assum8ng she is the daughter of Billary). Since her parents were directly involved in war campaigns that killed Muslim innocents, it seems hypocritical on the part of the Clintons to pretend that it is a bad thing when non-government actors do the same thing.

That's not the same as "waging war against Muslims". As you note yourself, one of the west's long-standing allies is Saudi Arabia, a Muslim majority country. There are also plenty of other Muslim majority countries which are either neutral or allied to the west.

There is a qualitative difference between targeting civilians and not being able to prevent civilian casualties, and it's usually this difference that prevents the carnage and evil that western people seem to be no longer able to imagine.

Why is Chelsea Clinton responsible for her parents' actions?

[Sivad]

It seems we are now in conspiracy theory territory. Please provide evidence that majorities in western countries can easily be convinced to support genocide or terror attacks against civilians. Thanks.

You're joking, right?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

You're joking, right?

Not at all.

[Sivad]

Not at all.

Yeah, well trying to pretend there's some meaningful distinction between US bombings, drone strikes, JSOC death squads, counter-insurgency dirty wars and Islamic terror attacks is completely dishonest. The US is the biggest terror state in the history of the world.

[Verv]

The initial question here of whether or not the majority of people can be convinced to carry out genocide is interesting.

On the one hand, genocide happens frequently enough, and it can really rise up in somewhat short timelines...

But, on the other hand, it also seems clear that it tends to only occur when desperate circumstances have been encountered and the average person does feel threatened, and this does not describe the case of anyone in the West these days.

At least not materially. Plenty of people feel other sorts of long-term existential threads, and that is why NZ happened. And it would probably be argued by people who are apologists for Islamic extremism that it is out of a similar desperate mindset.

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems we are now in conspiracy theory territory. Please provide evidence that majorities in western countries can easily be convinced to support genocide or terror attacks against civilians. Thanks.

Nazi Germany.

The concept of white man’s burden was a commonly held belief about the moral rightness of imperialism, which caused genocides.

The current acceptance of US shock and awe campaigns against other countries.

The firebombing of Dresden.

Republican and Democrat support for drone attacks, black sites, imprisoning people without trial, etc.

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country.

Yes, and the US openly supports its oppression, and the US populace does not bat an eyelid about it.

Western countries have not attempted genocide or targeted civilians in their military operations. In fact, they usually try to minimise civilian casualties, although not always successfully.

Sometimes they make no effort to avoid civilian casualties.

Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Wounded Knee.

Nazi Germany.

Battle rape.

And I am staying within the last 150 years or so.

There was never a Muslim ban.

There was widespread acceptance of his Muslim ban, which indicates widespread Islamophobia.

That's not the same as "waging war against Muslims".

It is exactly that.

You mean to say “That's not the same as "waging war against Muslims" because they are Muslim.”

The fact that we are waging war against Muslim majority countries simply because we want to control and sell the oil in these countries does not change the fact that we are waging war against Muslim majority countries.

As you note yourself, one of the west's long-standing allies is Saudi Arabia, a Muslim majority country. There are also plenty of other Muslim majority countries which are either neutral or allied to the west.

Yes, and this also does not change the fact that we are waging war against Muslim majority countries.

There is a qualitative difference between targeting civilians and not being able to prevent civilian casualties, and it's usually this difference that prevents the carnage and evil that western people seem to be no longer able to imagine.

The US was (is?) a member of the Saudi led coalition in the recent conflict in Yemen, which included providing the cluster bombs dropped on civilian targets.

Unless you think the US military is ignorant of how its intelligence, weapons and other forces are being used in a coalition, the US has knowingly bombed civilians in the very recent past.

Why is Chelsea Clinton responsible for her parents' actions?

She is not.

Her silence when her parents were killing people speaks volumes itself, though.

——————————-

The initial question here of whether or not the majority of people can be convinced to carry out genocide is interesting.

On the one hand, genocide happens frequently enough, and it can really rise up in somewhat short timelines...

But, on the other hand, it also seems clear that it tends to only occur when desperate circumstances have been encountered and the average person does feel threatened, and this does not describe the case of anyone in the West these days.

How were Germans in 1939 under desperate circumstances?

Do you think they felt threatened by Jews and that this was a rational threat?

Did Belgians feel threatened by the Congolese?

At least not materially. Plenty of people feel other sorts of long-term existential threads, and that is why NZ happened. And it would probably be argued by people who are apologists for Islamic extremism that it is out of a similar desperate mindset.

I think the Christchurch terrorist attack, like Islamist attacks, is not really comparable to genocide.

There are too many points of contrast to suggest any meaningful similarities in motive

[Verv]

The Nazis rose to power in 1933 because the Germans felt that their entire society was collapsing & tanking because of the economic hardship and the morally disturbing condition of Berlin, right.

Many people seem to set the beginning of the Holocaust as 1941.

What is kind of ironic is that you could argue that Germany faced a grave threat during the economic collapse -- not necessarily a threat to the existence of Germany itself, but a personal threat and pain for every German person, and then again by 1939 and 1941 (and so on) we are coming around to another new series of threats to their safety.

It's also worth noting that some people claim that the average Germans tended to be unaware of the Holocaust, though I don't know the details about this. I am sure someone else could illuminate us further about it.

[Igor Antunov]

Australian ISP's just blocked a bunch of sites. Included in the list of blocked websites are Voat, 4Chan, Zerohedge, 8Chan, and Liveleak.

Firing up the old VPN bois.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Nazis rose to power in 1933 because the Germans felt that their entire society was collapsing & tanking because of the economic hardship and the morally disturbing condition of Berlin, right.

Many people seem to set the beginning of the Holocaust as 1941.

What is kind of ironic is that you could argue that Germany faced a grave threat during the economic collapse -- not necessarily a threat to the existence of Germany itself, but a personal threat and pain for every German person, and then again by 1939 and 1941 (and so on) we are coming around to another new series of threats to their safety.

It's also worth noting that some people claim that the average Germans tended to be unaware of the Holocaust, though I don't know the details about this. I am sure someone else could illuminate us further about it.

So, they were having economic problems, and blamed the Jews. They were not actually threatened.

[Verv]

Sure, they were not threatened existentially by the Jews, and the grave economic collapse of Germany wasn't caused by the Jews, nor was the disaster of WWI which was the real root of their problems.

So they did misplace blame and commit atrocities that are not justifiable. Murder can never be right.

Yet, I still feel it is important to state that the Germans felt very much like their backs were up against the wall from the end of World War I until the end of World War II.

I do not know why it would be important to you to say otherwise -- I mean, are you trying to really say that the Germans just did all of this on a whim? That German people, and people as a whole, carry within them the ability to transition from a perfectly happy community into genocidal maniacs because the radio propaganda was epic..?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, I do not think that economic issues are actually that desperate. The whole developing world lives with more economic desperation and yet they do not engage in genocide any more than the west.

Nor was the average German actually threatened by Jews.

The same could be said of the Belgians when they genocided the Congolese: they were not significantly more desperate than others or threatened.

[annatar1914]

I'm not partial, as it seems that the elite push for mass disarmament whether the baddies bow to the swastika or the crescent moon.

Fuck them both and fuck the elites who use these sorts of things to take away guns from law abiding people.

But lets not pretend that the same "solution" is not advocated for even after Islamic attacks.

If there is a false-flag here, those on the ethno-nat and fashy side need to point to something more substantial than "muh guns."

Likewise, anyone who really claims that white nationalism and supremacy is more of a threat than Islamic fundamentalism needs their head checked and should probably not go on twitter ever again and perhaps do some reading in history; starting with "the birth of Muhammad" and ending with "ISIS"

I also want to take this time to discuss genocides.

Far-Right statists: 6 million.
Far-Left statists: close to 100 million.
Ottoman Caliphate: 2 million plus.

Libertarian/Ancaps: 0

In my opinion, both some of the Globalist Western Elites and the Islamist Jihadis are Fascistic, and so it is in the interests of all these bad guys to use what was called (by actual Fascists in the 1970's!) the ''Strategy of Tension''.... Their planning went like this back in the 1970's; ''Crisis, Reaction, Solution''. They would carry out terrorist attacks under false fronts, ratchet up the outcry for a Police State to protect people, and then deliver it to them good and hard.

I could be wrong but I don't see what's going on now as much different than back then.

[Sivad]

In my opinion, both some of the Globalist Western Elites and the Islamist Jihadis are Fascistic, and so it is in the interests of all these bad guys to use what was called (by actual Fascists in the 1970's!) the ''Strategy of Tension''.... Their planning went like this back in the 1970's; ''Crisis, Reaction, Solution''. They would carry out terrorist attacks under false fronts, ratchet up the outcry for a Police State to protect people, and then deliver it to them good and hard.

That's just a well established historical fact and as a doctrinaire babbitt dink I dogmatically reject all facts that don't comport with the establishment paradigm.

[Igor Antunov]

Wait wasn't Genghis Khan basically libertarian? +60 million killed

[ness31]

Australian ISP's just blocked a bunch of sites. Included in the list of blocked websites are Voat, 4Chan, Zerohedge, 8Chan, and Liveleak.

Firing up the old VPN bois.

What do they all have in common?

There is a forensic element in me that really wants to do a search for the footage and view it.

But the scared, and oppressed by their government person in me says I’d better not do that.

The old school human in me thinks I’m a bit of a weirdo.

[Rugoz]

It seems we are now in conspiracy theory territory. Please provide evidence that majorities in western countries can easily be convinced to support genocide or terror attacks against civilians. Thanks.

Nazi Germany.

- The NSDAP was anti-semitic, but extermination of the Jews wasn't part of their (official) platform.
- The NSDAP never got a majority of votes.
- The Nazi regime obviously hid the holocaust from the German population, to the extent possible.