It was barely covered, with the added agenda of trying to paint the terrorist as an “lone wolf” or “mentally damaged”

Not something that they did with Breivik.

I don't know which news sources you ingest, but both of the attacks I mentioned were highly covered.
Both Breivik and the NZ prick wrote manifestos which easily tied them to certain ideological train of thought.

I'm not saying the Muslims didn't make it clear what ideology they killed for, but 87 pages is a bit more than shouting "Allah Akbar", at least for the media.

Both Pulse and Nice had an manifesto of their own if you add the Quran as a manifesto.

Since that’s where they get their ideological train of thought.

Not to mention the immediate damage control the establishment commits when the perpetrator is Muslim.

That the people wrote and that is directly tied to them*

#notall

Immediate restriction of speech.

You yourself would probably find it annoying if some fedora tipper said that Bible was Coventry Garden terrorist's manifesto.

I wouldn’t if said terrorist actually did cite the bible for his actions.

Then we have very differeng interpretations of the word "manifesto".

We don’t.

The thing with Islamists is that they don’t need to write an actual manifesto

When they have the Quran as inspiration.

If you want to say the censorship of speech is bad, I agree conpletely. Why you need to somehow imply that "there's these other issues, now stop caring about this one" is beyond me.

I don’t

Quaran and Bible is interpreted work. A manifesto is a written declaration.

I’m pointing out the hypocrisy

"The Catcher in the Rye" was said to have inspired the John Lennon killer.

Is "Catcher in the Rye" a manifesto?

Funny how most Islamic countries interpret the Quran the same way then.

Or how most western mosques interpret the Quran the same way too.

Granted of course it’s not between the Sunnis vs Shia Islam.

i never understood why the sunnis and shia kill each other

like i know its a disputed successor to mohammed or something

@Cody

Because they treat Muhammad as their god sent king.

i mean Christians do that to jesus, but we dont kill each other over it

Jesus wasn’t a warlord that established a theocracy across an subcontinent

jesus is god incarnate

muhammad is not

Prots vs Catholics was a thing.

Just saying, people got killed pretty heavily.

it is much stranger that muslims worship muhammad in such a way that would imply he was a god king

That was mainly a breakaway from catholic corruption. And geopolitical split betweeen northern and Southern Europe

it resembles the worship of the pharaohs more so than any christian practice

Oh and Orthodox vs Cath too, with the Battle on Ice and whatnot.

Prots vs Catholics killing each other is the exception and didn't last very long

yeah

Most of that was political and not religiously motivated anyways