When will Trump and Trumpers admit we have a White Nationalist/Supremaict problem?

Originally posted by cdtm
You're the one tying killing to right wing idealogy though.

Clearly, a mentally ill person killing in the name of idealogy does not reflect on all adherents of an idealogy.

But tell us what your position is, if we don't "get it". Are you arguing against right wing idealogy?

Or only those few mentally disturbed people who in no way represent right wing idealogy as a whole?

No, the shooter tied the shooting to right wing ideology, clown.

And his actions are the rational consequent of someone who truly believes a right wing ideology that white people like him are being systematically replaced by immigrants funded by Jews. If he you truly believed that was happening, and did nothing, then you would be the crazy one.

Originally posted by cdtm
You're the one tying killing to right wing idealogy though.

Clearly, a mentally ill person killing in the name of idealogy does not reflect on all adherents of an idealogy.

But tell us what your position is, if we don't "get it". Are you arguing against right wing idealogy?

Or only those few mentally disturbed people who in no way represent right wing idealogy as a whole?

I'm 100% certain if I do a search of this forum that I won't find any examples of you using phrases such as "leftists think", "leftists believe" and other such generalisations.

100% sure...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Post an example of one of those psychology stable mass shooters so that I may compare and learn the difference

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This arson is not relevant, because we do not know who did it.

This mass shooting was political. The shooter said so in his 180-page White Nationalist manifesto.

I know that. I was speaking of mass killers in general.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Those who do it out of a genuine belief in a cause, such as some Islamists, can be otherwise psychologically stable. That's a good place to start.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
But it was an attack on civilians? I mean, you could argue that the arsonists knew that the office was empty, but we don't know that and there sure as hell was no way for the arsonists to know that the fire would not spread out of control.

They're not, but they are not mutually inclusive either. It seems to me that most mass killers are ultimately mentally and/or emotionally disturbed nutjobs.

No, it was an attack on property. And the fact that the arsonist did it when the building was unoccupied suggests to me that it was an inside job.

Someone who was targeting a right wing extremist organization for political violence would not care if right wing extremists were inside, and would aim to maximize property damage.

This arsonist managed to avoid all surveillance, spray paint a message on the building, break a window, and throw a molotov cocktail inside, doing minimal damage when no one was there.

For contrast, all of the abortion clinics that have been bombed and set on fire were done during business hours when patients and staff were present. Why? Because in the mind of the arsonists and bombers, those people are murdering babies, and deserve to be harmed.

They are not going out of their way to avoid detection, and harm as few people and as little property as possible. That is the entire point of doing it.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I would rather not assume a false flag until proven otherwise. So as far as we know, to date, it was some leftoid terrorist.

I know that. I was speaking of mass killers in general.

So if I were to search this forum for "Jussie Smollet," I will not find any posts by you suggesting he faked it until it was proved in court, correct?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so nobody except those psychology stable al qaeda terrorists? surely at least one person must have come to mind before you made that assertion.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The 9/11 hijackers were by all accounts psychologically stable.

{citation needed}

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Those who do it out of a genuine belief in a cause, such as some Islamists, can be otherwise psychologically stable. That's a good place to start.

Congratulations, you just described Payton Gendron, clown.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I would rather not assume a false flag until proven otherwise. So as far as we know, to date, it was some leftoid terrorist.

So far as we know, weasel words are worthless, at least that's what I hear, to date. so why are we only allowed to assume that the true culprit was whomever you want it to be?

The 9/11 hijackers were mental freaks who wanted to say "**** you, America!"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Congratulations, you just described Payton Gendron, clown.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it was an attack on property. And the fact that the arsonist did it when the building was unoccupied suggests to me that it was an inside job.

Someone who was targeting a right wing extremist organization for political violence would not care if right wing extremists were inside, and would aim to maximize property damage.

This arsonist managed to avoid all surveillance, spray paint a message on the building, break a window, and throw a molotov cocktail inside, doing minimal damage when no one was there.

For contrast, all of the abortion clinics that have been bombed and set on fire were done during business hours when patients and staff were present. Why? Because in the mind of the arsonists and bombers, those people are murdering babies, and deserve to be harmed.

They are not going out of their way to avoid detection, and harm as few people and as little property as possible. That is the entire point of doing it.

Originally posted by Blakemore
The 9/11 hijackers were mental freaks who wanted to say "**** you, America!"

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You don't have to be a 'mental freak' to want to do that, that's my point. You can be psychologically stable and still be willing to commit atrocities.

k so about those american leftist mass murderers who are very clever at hiding their existence...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
{citation needed}

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208552.pdf

https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=psychology_pubs

It names the hijackers as regular, well-educated people with relatively normal psychological profiles. Though apparently the ringleader, Mohamed Atta, had some weird puritanical tendencies.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So if I were to search this forum for "Jussie Smollet," I will not find any posts by you suggesting he faked it until it was proved in court, correct?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208552.pdf

https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=psychology_pubs

It names the hijackers as regular, well-educated people with relatively normal psychological profiles. Though apparently the ringleader, Mohamed Atta, had some weird puritanical tendencies.

Several weeks later, Mihdhar sought a refund of his deposit, claiming he no longer intended to move in because the apartment was too messy. When the landlord refused to refund the deposit, Mihdhar became belligerent. The landlord remembers him "ranting and raving" as if he were "psychotic."27 (from your own source)

you're doing a great smokescreen job 👆 what topic?