Fair, I can see how it would read in an ambiguous way from someone operating in a different context.

I had assumed it would be clear that I was ascribing religious motivation to the killer rather than the commenter. Especially as I clarified this in the thing you are now directly replying to.

?

You replied to my comment but none of your reply seems to relate to any of it, was it intended to be a reply to another comment, did you just assume what I had written, or did something get very lost in translation?

Notice that they never said anything about the religion, but question the ACTIONS of that synagogue before expending emotional energy.

I didn’t accuse the parent comment of targeting Jews, I referred to the killer as targeting Jews given the attack was on a synagogue on yom Kippur.

And they didn’t call for their deaths, they merely said that if they were one of the synagogues who are preaching hate then they won’t care about their suffering, just as those people don’t care about the suffering in gaza right now.

I never said they did, I specifically used the phrase “minimise” which I believe is appropriate when someone states religiously motivated killing is not worthy of care, arguably they made this conditional on the synagogue not preaching hate, but this feels like an incredibly thin justification, it was not mentioned anywhere in the article, I have not seen any evidence of widespread islamophobia in synagogues (googling variations on the phrase yields nothing). Raising this as far as i can tell only serves as a manufured justification to deny the severity of this act.

This shit is so common and so infuriating - "They laughed at his death because of his beliefs"No, you are being disingenuous - “They laughed at his death because of his actions. he called for the death and suffering of many.” is not the same thing at all.

This is just confusing, the parts within quotation marks bear no resemblance to anything I wrote, even being charitable and assuming “You are being disengenous” is using the rhetorical “you” it still seems a mile off topic, maybe it refers to the discussion around Charlie Kirk?

I know how awful that is. I feel gross even saying it.

That voice there is a part of you that knows that murdering people solely on the basis of which religion they follow is wrong.

I would urge you to listen more closely to that voice and less to the one that tries to justify minimising the killings on the basis of propaganda.