it's not rationalizing the attack. there's no justification for what that man did. this is for the Muslims who didn't perpetrate the attack and who don't deserve to be discriminated against because of their peers' actions.
it's the easy way to make a generalization about a population and hold a hatred against them. it's also morally wrong and pushes a large amount of people under the bus. if you had a good friend who was muslim, and you knew they weren't part of this ideology, would you turn against them anyway?
The picture was unrelated to my statement about progressive rationalization, just an ironic aside, but this man did have justification for what he did. He was acting out on the tenants of his religion that very explicitly say the punishment for homoloveuality is death, and he did so in a way that would spread that fear and his message to the masses. He died in battle honoring his God.
I wouldn't turn against a Muslim friend just for an incident perpetrated by another, but I would absolutely stop associating with them if they refused to denounce this kind of attack or sympathized at all with its motives.
Lmbo they'll say anything to dance around the fact that this was an attacked motivated by religious ideology.
wife-beater with short fuse: invokes images of white trailer trash
likes to work out: blames toxic masculinity as cause of action
non-religious: Wasn't God who told him to kill a room full of gay people!
