Armchair Critic,

I feel I was a little bit to harsh in my last post. You clearly have a highly creative mind, and whilst I still feel that you'd make a poor scientist etc.; I reckon you'd probably make a decent writer of fiction. Ever considered it? There's a lot of money to be had if you can write a good book; just look at J.K Rowling in wealth.

Or maybe your talents lie in the field of art. How do you fare with simple paper and pencil sketches? I draw like a retarded three year-old. Although that is probably doing a bit of a disservice the artistic abilities of retarded three year-olds.

Anyway, I reckon there is probably something you're really good at, AC. And I suspect it lies in some sort of creative or artistic pursuit.

I think you're probably wasting your time trying to be 'AC - World Detective' and that you'll be happiest when you figure out what you're good at and start doing that.

//Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?//

Because the investigators ruled it out.

As I said earlier Toni you ISIS apologist,
"Regarding the Police investigation; an important thing to note is that they categorise these things as 'terrorist incidents' based on a proven connection to a terrorist organisation and not the extent of the act itself."

That means (you idiot) that I could piss on a coppers boots and if police find an ACTUAL connection and planning between myself and a terrorist organisation; or if the terrorist organisation claims responsibility then it is a terrorist attack and I am a terrorist.

On the other hand a person could run around on a stabbing rampage screaming "Allah Ackbar" spabbing countless innocent people or go crazy in a car running countless people over whilst screaming "Allah Ackbar" and if police cannot make an actual connection between this person and a terrorist organisation then it is not a terrorist attack and the person not a terrorist.

Person peeing on officers boots = terrorist.
Person stabbing or running over countless people screaming "Allah Ackbar" = not a terrorist.

Again you argumentative moron, these 'incidents' are based on a proven connection to a terrorist organisation and not the extent of the act itself.

To say no evidence of radical Islam when a (French / Syrian refugee no less) terrorised a neigbourhood killing numerous people for hours on a stabbing rampage screaming "Allah Ackbar" has nothing to do with radical Islam is ludicrous.

How many people are dumb enough to fall for a Jedi mind trick?

You come home find your wife sleeping with the neighbour.
She say's "You must be seeing things, you did not just catch me having sex with the neighbour".
"Fine, I must've been seeing things; lets go to dinner then shall we?"

You want to know the only logical answer Toni?
I think the investigators have psychosis.

"I feel I was a little bit to harsh in my last post. "

- And I hadn't yet read your next post, which I can't exactly tell if you are serious or taking the piss.
In any case I used to be fairly good at art and drawing as a child but kind of grew out of it in my teenage years.
I'm not trying to be 'AC - World Detective', if I was I'd have to concede I'm doing a crap job. I simply exercise my right to have an opinion on a 'free speech is like muscles - use them or lose them' basis.

Dear Armchair Critic,

No offence - but people who enjoy the right of
free speech have a duty to respect other
people's rights. A person's freedom of speech is
limited by the rights of others. Of course you
are entitled to your opinion - but you crossed
the line in the way you expressed it - totally
demeaning the mother. That was not called for.
And she also was expressing her opinion.

You’re wrong on both counts, Armchair Critic.

<< Person peeing on officers boots = terrorist.
Person stabbing or running over countless people screaming "Allah Ackbar" = not a terrorist.>>

Per the National Security Information Act 2004 (Cth), a crime needs to meet two criteria to be considered a terrorist act:

1. It intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

2. It causes one or more of the following:
- death, serious harm or danger to a person
- serious damage to property
- a serious risk to the health of safety of the public
- serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

http://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/Counterterrorismlaw/Pages/AustraliasCounterTerrorismLaws.aspx

So the incident that got yours and ttbn’s right-wing knickers in a twist fails the first test, while your ‘pissing’ analogy fails both tests.

You’re just going to have to find something else to become enraged over, I'm afraid. Why don’t you complain about the tiny percentage of people rorting the welfare system, while 679 companies pay no tax at all? That always seems to be a favourite amongst you lot, and you won’t be attacking a grieving mother who doesn’t want her daughter’s death politicised that way, either.

Hey Foxy,
Hmm... Demean?
No, honestly I truly think it was just really harsh criticism however I accept that other people might see my comments as demeaning; as SteeleRedux also pointed out.
Demeaning? - with respect; and forgive me for saying this, but an example of 'demeaning' might've been if I have said this:
She's a disgusting mother; who doesn't deserve to have a child.
That because of her blind and ignorant support for a religion that normalises the killing of innocents that it's karma her daughter was killed.
That her kid was better off dead than with a mother like her.

Those are the types of things one might actually consider 'demeaning'.

Now I totally respect the point you and others are trying to make.
I spent hours thinking on it.
That to criticise a mother who has just lost a child is immoral, unbecoming, disrespectful, heartless etc. etc.
I totally get it ok.

What bothers me firstly is we're living in a world where there is this need for me 'proclaim to everyone my sympathies for the mother' like we all need to do this ritualistic blowing of steam up others rear ends.
In my my world those condolences and sympathies are a given.

One thing had absolutely nothing to do with the other.
The sympathy and condolences are a given, the criticism was earned based on her own comments of giving radical Islam a free pass.
Giving this behaviour a free pass, earned the criticism.
Her giving Radical Islam a free pass normalises and gives silent consent to this behavior; and that puts other peoples daughters at risk.

So lets change the qestion a little bit.
If her actions normalise Radical Islam and give silent consent to it in our communities, then can you tell me why my criticism WAS NOT warranted ?

Theres pro's and con's in just about everything...