Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

fash

Human interest story focusing on just one of the victims. Makes things hit home more I think (forgive the daily mail link- it popped up on Google):


Daily Mail: Woman shot dead as she begged for help on the pavement outside Christchurch mosque had escaped.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6828025/Woman-shot-dead-begged-help-pavement-outside-Christchurch-mosque-escaped.html?ito=rss-google-news

suicide_circus

i think it might be cathartic for the people of NZ to burn Peterson's books in the civic square in Wellington

markodaly

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea but in fairness hitler never stood beside someone wearing a questionable t-shirt

Well, he was a downtrodden artist and a Vegetarian to boot, which is brownie points for the new age puritans.

markodaly

suicide_circus wrote: »

i think it might be cathartic for the people of NZ to burn Peterson's books in the civic square in Wellington

Heinrich Heine wrote:

Wherever books are burned, men in the end will also burn

.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

i think it might be cathartic for the people of NZ to burn Peterson's books in the civic square in Wellington

Wow, mocking a massacre, cool.

I doubt the people of NZ or the victims families give a flying fook about some nobody loon "author" or what some shop has decided not to stock.

I imagine they are more focused on how 50 men, women and children can be slaughtered by a cowardly bigot because the internet hurt his delusional "feelings".

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

Wow, mocking a massacre, cool.

I doubt the people of NZ or the victims families give a flying fook about some nobody loon "author" or what some shop has decided not to stock.

I imagine they are more focused on how 50 men, women and children can be slaughtered by a cowardly bigot because the internet hurt his delusional "feelings".

yeah. not mocking the massacre, mocking the sinister reactions to it. you do enjoy a good strawman dont you.

Cienciano

markodaly wrote: »

On the book banning itself, its kinda hilarious in a way but also tragic.

One can buy Mein Kampf from the same bookshop, yet Jordan Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life' which as far as I know never even mentions Islam gets banned?

Odd times we live in.

Some people want to live in a pure, virtuous world where everyone is free of all sin, so to speak. We should call it 'Progressive Neo Puritanism'.

You can call it capitalism too. First of all, the bookshop can stock whatever they want. You can choose to shop there if you like, or if you don't like how they do business, then go somewhere else. The bookshop can decide publishing a book the mass killer has read might not be a good look for them. Whatever the reason, they can do what the fúck they want.

suicide_circus

so capitalism when it bans ideas you dislike is fair game.

but capitalism which results in income inequality is bad.

which is it?

Franz Von Peppercorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

so capitalism when it bans ideas you dislike is fair game.

but capitalism which results in income inequality is bad.

which is it?

To be fair. Could be both. That’s a false dilemma.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

yeah. not mocking the massacre, mocking the sinister reactions to it. you do enjoy a good strawman dont you.

Your suggesting comical reactions, it's mocking plain and simple.

Cienciano

suicide_circus wrote: »

so capitalism when it bans ideas you dislike is fair game.

but capitalism which results in income inequality is bad.

which is it?

What idea has been banned?

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

Your suggesting comical reactions, it's mocking plain and simple.

your strawmans dont work buddy

suicide_circus

Cienciano wrote: »

What idea has been banned?

i'm just suspicious of the banning of books.

suicide_circus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

To be fair. Could be both. That’s a false dilemma.

its the using of capitalism as a defence by people who decry capitalism that i find hypocritical. not to mention short sighted, one day it will be their books which will be banned.

markodaly

Cienciano wrote: »

You can call it capitalism too. First of all, the bookshop can stock whatever they want. You can choose to shop there if you like, or if you don't like how they do business, then go somewhere else. The bookshop can decide publishing a book the mass killer has read might not be a good look for them. Whatever the reason, they can do what the fúck they want.

You misunderstood, I agree with the principle.

Cienciano

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm just suspicious of the banning of books.

Relax, a bookstore choosing to not stock a book is not "the banning of books". There's probably thousands of books they don't stock for different reasons.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Wow, mocking a massacre, cool.

I doubt the people of NZ or the victims families give a flying fook about some nobody loon "author" or what some shop has decided not to stock.

I imagine they are more focused on how 50 men, women and children can be slaughtered by a cowardly bigot because the internet hurt his delusional "feelings".

All of us, without exception have been shocked by this horrific massacre in New Zealand, and more so because many of us know the country, and it is within the wider ''European'' world. The stories of the poor people mown down so brutally are heart-breaking.

Ironically, we respond more strongly to this story than others because of inherent racial allegiance - this happened among ''our'' kind of people, in a country ''we'' know. This is not that admirable really if one examines it. If it were otherwise we would respond equally strongly to the massacres in Egypt or the Philippines, but the fact is we do not.

Do you respond to every massacre that happens in the world with quite this level of investment? You must be kept busy if so, but at least you would be admirably consistent. I put in a list earlier of recent massacres by cowardly religious and political bigots such as you described this murderer, so you can check how democratic your compassion has been of late. The massacres from many different corners of the world have overwhelmingly been committed by those whose ''feelings'' have been deluded by radical Islam.

Or perhaps you are simply on a bandwagon that pushes an agenda?

Franz Von Peppercorn

suicide_circus wrote: »

its the using of capitalism as a defence by people who decry capitalism that i find hypocritical. not to mention short sighted, one day it will be their books which will be banned.

It’s one bookshop not allowing certain books. Happens all the time. All bookshops have editorial policies, and limited space.

Online monopolies are a bit different.

Zorya

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s one bookshop not allowing certain books. Happens all the time. All bookshops have editorial policies, and limited space.

Online monopolies are a bit different.

I don't really care one way or another about this book being not stocked, it doesn't rile me up, but just to say Whitscoulls (sp?) has over 50 stores in New Zealand, so it pretty much is the bookstore for the whole country.

Call Me Jimmy

Cienciano wrote: »

You can call it capitalism too. First of all, the bookshop can stock whatever they want. You can choose to shop there if you like, or if you don't like how they do business, then go somewhere else. The bookshop can decide publishing a book the mass killer has read might not be a good look for them. Whatever the reason, they can do what the fúck they want.

Of course they can decide not to sell a book that 'the mass killer has read' (has he?), and people can criticise that decision so that society / consumers don't validate similar ones in the future. That's the feedback loop of capitalism. People think it's not a good idea for bookstores to stop selling books based on what a mass killer may or may not have read and are voicing that opinion.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

I don't really care one way or another about this book being not stocked, it doesn't rile me up, but just to say Whitscoulls (sp?) has over 50 stores in New Zealand, so it pretty much is the bookstore for the whole country.

No it isn't, they have several chains of books stores, including Amazon and many other online retailers.

If anyone wanted the book they could have it, in seconds if they so wished.

suicide_circus

im sorry, my spidey senses just tingle when books with pretty flipping innocuous subject matter are scapgoated for a mass murder. Look its a knee jerk reaction with little or no thought behind it, i get it.

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

Look its a knee jerk reaction with little or no thought behind it

Not a shock TBH SC.

Zorya

suicide_circus wrote: »

im sorry, my spidey senses just tingle when books with pretty flipping innocuous subject matter are scapgoated for a mass murder. Look its a knee jerk reaction with little or no thought behind it, i get it.

Norman Vincent Peale, the benign old grand-daddy of self help gurus, is said to have been highly influential in shaping the mind of........dun dun dun ....Donald Trump! Off with his head.

conorhal

suicide_circus wrote: »

im sorry, my spidey senses just tingle when books with pretty flipping innocuous subject matter are scapgoated for a mass murder. Look its a knee jerk reaction with little or no thought behind it, i get it.

If you want to know who the real Nazi's are, all you have to do is ask yourself, 'who's burning the books these days?'

Why it's almost as if the identitarian left have no interest in challenging right wing extremists, but would rather employ the deaths of 50 people to de-platform the most middle of the road conservatives because they are the ones that might actually challenge their orthodoxy.

In their censorious rampage, there are two scary consequences of their current behaviour that the 'blue check-mark left' seem utterly oblivious to.

1) The worm always turns.
The same people losing their minds about Trump’s abuse of executive orders never questioned if it was a good idea to hand near dictatorial powers to an executive office when they legislated to expand their use under Obama, because divine rule by brown Jesus just seemed right to them at the time.
This de-platforming (by demanding tech firms develop and deploy tools to mass censor speech) will come to bite them in the ass, or do they imagine that global multi-national corporations will remain sympathetic to the voice of a bunch of Marxists when their interests are challenged?

2) This will formant civil war.
In their eagerness to drive any conservative voices from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, remove them from funding platforms like Patreon and Paypal and ensure that universities, the media and inflentual institutions contain no contrarian opinions, the identitarian left don’t seem to have considered where these people will go.
They will go to platforms like Gab, Bitchute and whatever payment processing platform that won’t un-person them from the internet that Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin are attempting to build.
All the left will achieve by their behavour is two very separate echo chambers in which confirmation bias will be the order of the day and all debate will cease.
If you want to formant a civil war, ending debate and ensuring that ideological opponents operate in completely segregated social, work and financial spaces is a sure fire way to do so. Perhaps that's the goal of the wannabe Che's wearing Antifa chic these days?

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I love it when self-confessed left winger go with the 'Its a private company, they can do what they want' line when it suits them.

Why?

If you think being left-wing means a person is automatically anti-capitalist rather than anti-exploitation it just demonstrates your own ignorance of the vast spectrum that encompasses the Left.

Either that or you are tasteless enough to use a thread about mass murder to have a dig at another poster's politics.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why?

If you think being left-wing means a person is automatically anti-capitalist rather than anti-exploitation it just demonstrates your own ignorance of the vast spectrum that encompasses the Left.

Either that or you are tasteless enough to use a thread about mass murder to have a dig at another poster's politics.

Condescension plus a claim of a higher moral authority, while ignoring the point. Quite a trifecta. I'll leave you to it.

MontgomeryClift

markodaly wrote: »

You do not see that it's odd that one can buy 'Mien Kampf' but not '12 rules for life'?

One guy was the leader of National Socialism, created the 3rd Reich, launched a war which killed up to 50 million people, including the gassing of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

While I don't argue with you on the book banning, I have a couple of corrections there:
1) Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3 1939, while Hitler, both in public and in private, always maintained he wanted an end to pointless wars with both countries, and
2) I suggest you do some real research in to the 'gassing of millions' thing, but I feel obliged to warn you that a critical inquiry into this topic will make you a holocaust denier.

DS86DS

Brendan Tarrant, self-described Communist with a hatred for Christianity and Conservatives.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/

He praises the People’s Republic of China as his ideal state.

He adds, in all caps, “CONSERVATISM IS DEAD, THANK GOD.” He also despises France’s National Front, or whatever it’s called today. He calls them “milquetoast.” He praises the emergence of Trump as a sign of hope, but mocks Trump too

kunst nugget

markodaly wrote: »

You do not see that it's odd that one can buy 'Mien Kampf' but not '12 rules for life'?

One guy was the leader of National Socialism, created the 3rd Reich, launched a war which killed up to 50 million people, including the gassing of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.

The other guy possed in a photo next to a guy wearing a subjectively offensive t-shirt.

Out of these two who whose ideas caused more carnage?

Oh, and that is not even starting on the whole 'freedom of speech' for private businesses when it suits.

Hypocrisy on the part of the bookstore for sure if that is the case. I don't know where the hypocrisy is on the part of the poster that you quoted. I think she's been pretty consistent in her approach to shops being allowed to stock or sell what they want. Maybe I missed some glaring example...

WinnyThePoo

DS86DS wrote: »

Brendan Tarrant, self-described Communist with a hatred for Christianity and Conservatives.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/

Think he hates muslims abit more. You do know he went into a mosque and shot and killed 59 adult and children...don't you?.

martingriff

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

While I don't argue with you on the book banning, I have a couple of corrections there:
1) Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3 1939, while Hitler, both in public and in private, always maintained he wanted an end to pointless wars with both countries, and
2) I suggest you do some real research in to the 'gassing of millions' thing, but I feel obliged to warn you that a critical inquiry into this topic will make you a holocaust denier.

1. Ya because Gemany was not the aggressor. They were innocent were they:rolleyes:

2. Are you saying millions were not killed

Baggly

Mod

Everyone. Get back on topic.

Manic Moran

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Think he hates muslims abit more. You do know he went into a mosque and shot and killed 59 adult and children...don't you?.

The shooting was more motivated by ethnicism / nationalism. If he shot up a church, he would have had a much higher incidence of killing non-immigrants and people of the same cultural background as he wished to retain for Aus/NZ. By shooting up a mosque, he was almost certainly going to be predominantly killing people who were immigrants and people from a different cultural background.

Billy Mays

There were also numerous references on the suspected shooter’s weapons to medieval battles and figures, including four names of medieval Serbs who fought against the Muslim Ottomans, two Hungarian military leaders who fought the Ottomans, and numerous references to the Crusades, when Christian armies from Europe tried to seize the Holy Land from Muslims during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries.

I'm sure this is just a coincidence though and the attack had nothing to do with the faith of the victims

Yeah_Right

I'm a New Zealander and I like guns. They're fun. I enjoy shooting them. I owned a few when I lived in NZ. I do agree that there should be restrictions on them. Much like cars. You should need a license and they should be registered. I have no issue with background checks and with the police having a database to keep track of them.

The restrictions the NZ government are bringing in are a knee jerk reaction and they want to be seen to be doing something in order to appease a shocked public. NZ doesn't have a gun culture so there isn't a need for banning types of weapons. There is a need to track them and to know who has them and to ensure nutjobs like Tarant don't have access to them.

I'm not a fan of PM Ardern. And I don't like her government. However I have to say she has generally handled this situation very well and has done a great job in helping the nation to grieve and heal. And I applaud her for that. I just hope she isn't able to ride this wave of populism into a 2nd term next year.

The talk of changing the name of the local rugby team from the Crusaders to ???? is an interesting one. It would be good PR and a nice gesture to the community but in fairness a lot of the people calling for a name change at the moment, wouldn't be big rugby fans in the first place. I don't have an issue with the team being named the Crusaders or the Vikings or the Pirates as that is all ancient history. HoweverI think they will change it next season.

Bannasidhe

Manic Moran wrote: »

The shooting was more motivated by ethnicism / nationalism. If he shot up a church, he would have had a much higher incidence of killing non-immigrants and people of the same cultural background as he wished to retain for Aus/NZ. By shooting up a mosque, he was almost certainly going to be predominantly killing people who were immigrants and people from a different cultural background.

Ummm... most of the population of NZ are from an immigrant background...
Even the Maori got there by boat originally. But their population got 'replaced'. Seems to me he was targeting one particular group of people and their religion was the key.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ummm... most of the population of NZ are from an immigrant background...
Even the Maori got there by boat originally.

Indeed, the Maori only got there a couple of centuries before the Europeans did. It was one of the last large land masses to be colonised by humans.

jmayo

Manic Moran wrote: »

The shooting was more motivated by ethnicism / nationalism. If he shot up a church, he would have had a much higher incidence of killing non-immigrants and people of the same cultural background as he wished to retain for Aus/NZ. By shooting up a mosque, he was almost certainly going to be predominantly killing people who were immigrants and people from a different cultural background.

Ah come on you are really stretching it now.
If he just hated immigrants he could have found a fair few South Sea Islanders in NZ or take a trip to the North Island and Auckland would have allowed him kill a fair few Asians that are living there.

The guy had a thing about muslims as he had supposedly visited Balkans for Ottoman battle field sites and was posting stuff about Balkan nationalism.

Boggles

Yeah_Right wrote: »

NZ doesn't have a gun culture so there isn't a need for banning types of weapons.

That's not really true is it?

I mean you don't make it into the top 20 of gun ownership in the world without having some bit of a gun culture.

Japan don't have a gun culture because they don't really have any guns. New Zealand have a lot of guns, including ones that can kill 50 people in a relative short amount of time.

Sensible gun laws are needed. Everywhere, you just shouldn't wait until a lot of people are massacred.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

That's not really true is it?

I mean you don't make it into the top 20 of gun ownership in the world without having some bit of a gun culture.

Japan don't have a gun culture because they don't really have any guns.

He's from New Zealand.

Almost every house in my neighbourhood - a very rural isolated spot - has a shot gun or two. Well except me, dagnabbit! It was the same where I grew up in the rural midlands. Lots of guns. And yet...I seriously never would have said Ireland has a ''gun culture''. I think it is just a rural tool and accessory.

judeboy101

Arden wearing a shayla , speaking about "how we are one" as she looks out on a sea of men and women segregated. Says it all really.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

He's from New Zealand.

Yeah, I know.

Zorya wrote: »

I seriously never would have said Ireland has a ''gun culture''. I think it is just a rural tool and accessory.

Well it does have a certain gun culture, but nowhere near the level of New Zealand.

New Zealand has a slightly smaller population with 4 times more gun ownership.

That is a culture, they are not all farmers.

Ireland has 3 times more farms.

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

By shooting up a mosque

He was guaranteed to kill 100% Muslims.

But he didn't target a particular faith, it was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

The clowns calling for the rugby team to change its name may want to read up on the Crusades.

William of Tyre's eye witness account

…Regardless of age and condition, they laid low, without distinction, every enemy encountered. Everywhere was frightful carnage, everywhere lay heaps of severed heads, so that soon it was impossible to pass or to go from one place to another except over the bodies of the slain. Already the leaders had forced their way by various routes almost to the center of the city and wrought unspeakable slaughter as they advanced. A host of people followed in their train, athirst for the blood of the enemy and wholly intent upon destruction. . . . So frightful was the massacre throughout the city, so terrible the shedding of blood, that even the victors experienced sensations of horror and loathing.

…A crowd of knights and foot soldiers... massacred all those who had taken refuge [in the court of the Temple]. No mercy was shown to anyone, and the whole place was flooded with the blood of the victims.

It was indeed the righteous judgment of God which ordained that those who had profaned the sanctuary of the Lord by their superstitious rites and had caused it to be an alien place to His faithful people should expiate their sin by death and, by pouring out their own blood, purify the sacred precincts.

It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain everywhere throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less.

http://www.historymuse.net/readings/WilliamofTyreCAPTUREOFJERUSALEM.htm

A massacre of Muslims in a Mosque. Wholesale slaughter.

Maybe clowns might want to read up on what the Crusaders themselves said before calling other people clowns.

Bannasidhe

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

Ancient history. Jews got slaughtered too. And what do you think happened to the Christians after the fall of the Crusades states?

I know exactly what happened during the Crusades thanks. All of them. Including the slaughter of Cathars in France. And the Sack of Constantinople. By Crusaders.

You are the one who suggested people read up on them as if there couldn't be any possible reason why some may feel a name change for the Crusaders may be appropriate.

I gave you an eye witness account as to why it could be considered appropriate.

sk8erboii

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

Ancient history. Jews got slaughtered too. And what do you think happened to the Christians after the fall of the Crusades states?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If theres anyone who fvcked christians harder in the crusades it’d be the christians themselves

sk8erboii

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

Plenty of Christian women getting ****ed when they were taken into sex slavery alright.

Can say the same about the Muslims too with their Sunni and Shia ****.

Ok buddy calm down. 50 people are dead because of a 4chan troll. No idea why you’re even mentioning the crusades.

If you really wanna cry about a christian tragedy, read how the eastern roman empire got fvcked by crusaders every step of the way. Christianity screwed itself

sk8erboii

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

Easy there kid, I'm merely pointing out this was complicated ****, with both sides doing bad, hence why it's retarded to guilt trip a rugby team over their name.

If you want to talk about Islamic tradegy read about how the Muslims got wrecked in the first crusade because they couldn't unite against the Christians.

Like i care. Remind me again, how many crusader states still exist?

sk8erboii

Toxic Sphere wrote: »

0. It's ok, history is not your strong point

Zing! Another victory for white catholics!

Hehe just a few more friday nights alone on boards and you’ll eventually defeat the globalist scum!

Keep at it lad. Anyway im off to a gaff party (;