Mass shooting on Bondi Beach

Yes it same images discussed here. From the same set of Facebook images linked to in the thread. The images that you said "you referred in post #497". Anyone can go back and check the posts/links.
There were called out as AI here by me, multiple times. I was calling out the entire set, not only the 1 of 3 I reposted.

If there is a misunderstanding, and you were referring to a different, real image. Then by all means, clear up the confusion.

I have not circulated any story relating to false images. Go ahead and draw whatever conclusions you want.

You said he was pictured with signed artillery. If that is an AI image, then the story is false. So not a lie.
Even if you didn't realise at the time that it was false. It's not a lie.
Saying the fundraising was for IDF rather than a village, is misleading if not outright false too.

If you were fooled by the AI images, that ok. It happens. A reasonable person would say "sorry, I was fooled". Continuing to defend your claims about a victim is really painting a clear picture.

The one of him with artillery is also clearly ai generated to me, and this, and another ai detector that I tried, agrees with this assessment

Weird how people are desperately trying to justify murder

Where have I said that I found the murder of 15 people in Australia or indeed 70,000 in Gaza acceptable ?

Did I suggest you said that. I think you've mixed up my post, with previous posts.

I only mentioned the suggestion they must have been recently radicalised.

I have seen no suggestion to back up that this father and son, while having ready access to an arsenal of weapons for years, were involved in any anti semitic activity or contemplating any act of terror let alone a mass shooting until now, which does leave open the question, no matter how much you may want to avoid it, as to why now where there is the strong possibility it was in connection to what has being going on in Gaza.

The lack of evidence of anti-semitic activity, is not evidence they held a different view. There's equally no evidence that held a different views. The fact they acted last weekend doesn't imply they recently formed there view. The mass murder is pretty big evidence they felt this way years. I've never heard of that said of any terror attack.

But there is a suggestion that this is the two suspects at a "Gas the Jews" protest in 2023. So not recently if that is accurate. I don't think as many photos of the father are released as the son though, and picture quality is not good. Again, absence of evidence, if not evidence the opposite.

https://x.com/antisemitism/status/2001000581259776417

It was obvious without the detector. No doubt he now say he was talking about a different picture on facebook, that is not AI. The real picture.

The attempt is to make the the images appear from that trip. There's nothing particularly untoward on the video. It's edited, but probably not AI. He speaks of fundraising for a village - post Oct7th. Not fundraising for the Israel governments, as some falsely claim.

I don't remember loads of people asking why or trying to understand the motivation behind the ChristChurch mosque shooter. Everyone basically accepted that he was a racist, far right POS. The questions were all about how he had access to military grade weapons.

Yet every time there's an Islamic terrorist attack, people want to discuss their motivation and how they were "radicalized". Why is that?

Nearly getting overlooked in all this though that terrorist attacks on Jewish people in the West are actually a total rarity. Nearly all the terrorist attacks of the last 20-25 years in Europe were on what were perceived to be white Christian targets: Madrid and London tube bombings, plus all the ISIS attacks more recently.

They arent a total rarity at all. Remember the attack on the Jewish supermarket ten years ago? There was also an attack at a jewish museum in 2014 and a school shooting in toulouse in 2012. Not to mention consistent low level events with schools and synagogues being targeted. Do you think the fact that armed protection is common at these places is just paranoia?

Considering how few jews there are in europe comparison to white Christians then I would say that they are over represented in these attacks, which are becoming more common. Also christian schools and places of worship aren't targeted in the same way in Europe. Yet.

Yet, we have people repeatedly on this thread saying we need to examine and acknowledge the role of geopolitics, the West, Israeli actions in Gaza for this act while downplaying any association or motivation by radical Islam, and insinuating that anyone who questions this is right wing.

You are such a disegenous poster, it is unreal. Are you that uncomfortable at the idea of losing your little scapegoats that you would resort to making up things? Surely you can address points logically if you disagree with them?

Because:

*I never said radical Islam wasn't a motivating factor for killings
*I never said this wasn't an antisemetic attack.
*I never said it was done for Gaza (considering what I know).
*I never said it was the west's fault.

The claim repeated here that Islamic terrorism happens "because they are Muslim" is completely wrong.

Saying this isnt denying any motivation (which is obviously Islamic extremism) it is stating it isn't the cause. Because motivation and causation are two different things.

Do me a favour. Take a breath and read what I am saying. It will help keep your emotions in check. Respond to what I'm saying. Dont make up things. I am happy to debate then.

One more time.

Terrorism is a method of violence, not an ideology. It can take on almost any form (other than pacficism).

Terrorism consistently appears where there is war, occupation, repression, and extreme power imbalance. That has been true across history and ideologies. Any argument here?

Looking through history the evidence is overhwhelming. Yet you and loads on here are saying that's not relevant to terrorism when it's Muslims doing it. Then it's cuz they're Muslims.

Would you argue that the PIRA existed because Irish people are violent, or because Catholicism, nationalism, or republicanism causes terrorism, and causes people to kill innocent civilians who they don't agree with?

Would you argue the PIRA had nothing to do with the specific political situation in NI?

Afterall, IRA members were mostly Irish, mostly Catholic, believed in Irish nationalism and killed innocent people in its name.

And just like some of the arguments on this thread, there were plenty of people in the UK tarring all Irish people - it's their religion, their culture is backward, they are a violent people, that's the Irish for you etc. Entire communities were treated a suspect because of the IRA , Irish communities constantly asked to denounce IRA violence.

Discrimination, political exclusion, occupation, BA killings on the streets, internment etc didn't factor into these conversations much. Similarities here?

The same applies to support networks. Irish Americans didn’t fund the IRA simply because they were Irish or Catholic for example. They did so because the conflict existed already and resonated with their identity/grievance. Without that political context, there would have been nothing to fund.

This is similar, the political context in many ME countries resonates with some Muslims in Europe/ UK / USA etc.

Some of these become violent terrorists with their ideology as their driving vehicle. In stable societies like we have in the west, these are mostly lone wolf style attacks, not massive terrorism like we see in the MEz where there is massive societal breakdown, which can spill into stable places like ours.

Others, be they countries or wealthy individuals, fund it like the Irish Americans did the PIRA, either because the conflict resonates with them, or they want to exert political influence (like Irans proxy groups)

None of what I am saying denies the motivations behind attacks, but motivation and causality are not the same thing, and my argument firmly rejects the idea of collective guilt of Muslims that so ignorantly gets trotted around here.

Muslims should no more be blamed for Islamist terrorism than Irish people should be blamed for the IRA.

You say you understand what I said, and then the rest of your posts proves anything but.

Who is justifying any islamic attacks? Show me where I am?

What I am refuting is that this is a Muslim responsibly. Collective blame is a horrible prejudice, and is exactly what these people did against the Jewksh people on the beach.

Saying those people shot Jewish people on the beach because they are Muslim is not rational and isn't true. Saying the IRA blew up civilians because they are Irish/ Catholic / nationalist isn't rational and isn't true. These were motivations for the killers, but completely leaves out the circumstances that lead to the emergence and existence of terrorism.

It doesn't matter where those people are from, how downtrodden they are, or how educated they are. Terrorists come in all shapes as sizes and a wide range of intelligence. These people killed for islamic state yes? Then undoubtedly, extreme Islam was their motivation. However, if there was no Iraq/ Syria war, years of brutal war and civilian killing, there would be no Islamic state. If the situation that existed in NI hadn't been there, there would be no IRA.

If terrorism is to be stopped, the conditions for it need to be stopped. If terrorism exists, the conditions for it need to be addressed. Tackling ideology is a blind alley. If conditions remain the same, it will find a new ideology. And tarring whole people doesn't make anybody safer.