Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Wibbs

Kivaro wrote: »

Not sure what's going on with the Irish Examiner today.
Here is something I posted on another thread earlier:

Standout headline on the Irish Examiner's viewpoint this morning:
We must tackle global threat of white terror

Yep, all us whities are responsible for all the world's ills.

The author could have easily used this headline:
We must tackle global threat of white extremist terror

But nagh, white guilt must prevail on media outlets, as it reinforces the liberal/left push for uncontrolled economic migration to Western countries.

TBH the more I read this utter self hating scutter in many of the media outlets I do begin to wonder WTF are they looking for? "Global threat of White terror? What the hell? If they're talking about some western governments and their militaries I could see it, but the plain facts are the vast majority of examples of terrorist attacks like this; lone(or small groups) gunman/bomber attacks are decidedly not perpetrated by pale faced White people.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

I keep saying that because I quoted the actual legislation back to you pointing out where it's vague and misses out entire classes of weapons. Never mind that it simply doesn't state "all semi automatic rifles are now banned(save for .22)"

That's according to the prime minister, not me.

Anyway like I said when the legislation is published it will be far less vague.

Zorya

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You have moved the goal posts. You claimed Islamophobia didn't play a part. Now you wish me to define the ways and means it fed a murders intentions.

If he had murdered 50 Jews in 2 synagogues would you quibble about whether or not Antisemitism was part of his ideological impetus?

Wearing the hijab is a visual demonstration that you actively do not support Islamophobia, as well as being a display of respect.

It's amazing how people can get so worked up, and judgmental, about a woman deciding of her own free will to wear a particular item on her head.

I really have not. I asked you to define this ''Islamophobia'' for which all good and honest people are being asked to feel guilty about, or to show that they do not ''actively support it''.
If a Synagogue is shot up, which has been done, have there been calls to the population to wear Kippahs or veils to distance themselves from their inherent anti-Semitism?
If that man in Milan succeeded in torching 51 children yesterday, which he had planned to do, would he be suffering from some kind of phobia - Europhobia, childophobia, Italophobia - for which the people of Senegal, or other Muslims, must wear some item of cultural clothing to disavow their part in that ''phobia''.

It's just silly. There is not this widespread ingrained Islamophobia for which ordinary people must atone. It is a word that substitutes for blasphemy really.

batgoat

Zorya wrote: »

They were not victims of Islamophobia in the west. They were victims of one murdering bastard. By all appearances they had/have very good lives in the West and have properly been shown enormous sympathy since the horrific massacre.

They were murdered by an Islamophobic scumbag, this is a fact. There is no question about this. I can say the exact same about the victims of Breivik. They both had bloody manifestos that emphasised this fact.

Eg when a synagogue was shot up last year in the US, we rightfully called the perpetrator an anti semite.

Boggles

batgoat wrote: »

They were murdered by an Islamophobic scumbag, this is a fact. There is no question about this. I can say the exact same about the victims of Breivik. They both had bloody manifestos that emphasised this fact.

Yeah, it's rather unsettling that someone would question that.

But not surprising I guess.

Zorya

batgoat wrote: »

They were murdered by an Islamophobic scumbag, this is a fact. There is no question about this. I can say the exact same about the victims of Breivik. They both had bloody manifestos that emphasised this fact.

Eg when a synagogue was shot up last year in the US, we rightfully called the perpetrator an anti semite.

Was there a campaign for solidarity Kippahs to show we don't actively support anti-Semitism?

batgoat

Zorya wrote: »

Was there a campaign for solidarity Kippahs to show we don't actively support anti-Semitism?

Why are you dodging the fact that it was an Islamophobic attack? I do recall that the Islamic community showed plenty of solidarity with the Jewish community btw. Different scenarios are dealt with differently.

Wibbs

BattleCorp wrote: »

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0055/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_arms+order_resel_25_a&p=1#LMS173647

I've read the attached order and all that does is declare what is now a military semi-automatic firearm.

It's not the actual order. And I believe they have fcuked up this part of the order as the definition is wider than originally intended so we'll see what happens.

Rushed legislation is not good legislation.

It'll be interesting to see the actual order.

+1 For example it now doesn't limit how many rounds a .22 mag can hold, nor does it mention pump action shotguns and how many they can have in their magazines. Never mind that .22LR and even .22 magnum rounds are somehow seen as OK and "safe". They don't have a lot of stopping power compared to a 9m or 7.62 no, but they can be just as deadly in the right/wrong circumstances. EG: shooting in Finland where eleven were murdered by a kid with a .22 pistol(a round fired from a pistol has lower energy compared to the same round from a longer barrelled rifle). Another Finnish example with another kid with a .22 pistol. Eight murdered. They're on a tragic roll on this one. Bobby Kennedy was murdered with a .22. I seem to recall reading the stat that the .22 kills more people than any other single calibre in the US. Now there would be a shedload more of them out there so that swings the stats. Still.

Boggles wrote:

Anyway like I said when the legislation is published it will be far less vague.

the order for the legislation has already been published. See BC's link above and it's even vaguer than the PM's quotes on the matter.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Was there a campaign for solidarity Kippahs to show we don't actively support anti-Semitism?

You are getting a little caught up and bit too angry in what is essentially meaningless BS gestures.

No different to this




What matters is the victims and their families and if some sort of solidarity eases them even slightly it's worth it.

Bigger picture TBH.

Hector Savage

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Article in the Irish Examiner today suggesting what we can do to counter Islamophobia

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/we-must-embrace-our-muslim-community-as-part-of-who-we-are-912330.html

The author suggests that "We must turn our education system around to make Islam understood as part of what we are, part of what we have always been"

Funny that, I thought most people in Ireland want the removal of religion from schools? Also I'm fairly certain Islam was never a part of what we have been

"We should counter our Islamophobia by approaching Islam from our own cultural background. Most of us were schooled by Christians. Islam has the same basic values"



Again I thought people wanted to move away from a religious based value system?

"you can see that these three religions encode rules for functional and progressive societies which helped bring a large part of the Eurasian continent to a high level of civilisation and compassion"

In Ireland the narrative is that religion created the opposite of a functional and progressive society..are we backtracking on that now?

"In Ireland in 2013, when Ali Selim published a book entitled Islam and Education in Ireland calling for a “revolution” in Irish education to help Muslims feel more included, Atheist Ireland responded by saying that there was already too much time allocated to religious festivals in Irish schools"

Ali Selim is an advocate for Female Genital Mutilation but I guess thats not really important is it? Not enough for the author to mention it. Maybe even a bit Islamophobic to oppose it?

"Muslims affront our new secularism by being openly religious"

Is she suggesting we return to religion (Islam perhaps?) in order to make Muslims feel more welcome here?

To me it's just incredible that the same people that would be all over removing the RCC from our schools are the ones that want a return to the same system - but just a new religion attached to it.

Serious cognitive dissonance

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

the order for the legislation has already been published. See BC's link above and it's even vaguer than the PM's quotes on the matter.

The legislation will take about a month, debated, amended, etc.

It will flesh out the details.

Odhinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

To me it's just incredible that the same people that would be all over removing the RCC from our schools are the ones that want a return to the same system - but just a new religion attached to it.

Serious cognitive dissonance

Who are these people? Quotes and links please.

Zorya

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some women in the West have decided of their own free will to wear an item of clothing that has become a symbol of Islamophobia in the West as a gesture of solidarity to victims of Islamobhobia in the West.

batgoat wrote: »

Why are you dodging the fact that it was an Islamophobic attack? I do recall that the Islamic community showed plenty of solidarity with the Jewish community btw. Different scenarios are dealt with differently.

The first post is the post I was responding to. The murderer may be Islamophobic, but the people shot are not ''victims of Islamophobia in the west''. They are victims of the murderer who was Islamophobic. It is different and the difference is important because it contextualises the wider response.To drive a narrative of rampant Islamophobia in the west is false and dangerous. If they were victims of a murderer who was schizophrenic we would not say they are victims of schizophrenia in the west and seek to atone generally for the existence of such in the west. I am using schizophrenia as an example of severely disordered thinking, and not as any aspersion to people who experience it.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

You are getting a little caught up and bit too angry in what is essentially meaningless BS gestures.

.

I'm not cross, if anything I'm sluggish. Drinking mint tea and wearing my pyjamas because I'm knackered.
Just think it is important not to buy into rampant Islamophobia in the west hype and etc etc

Bannasidhe

Zorya wrote: »

I really have not. I asked you to define this ''Islamophobia'' for which all good and honest people are being asked to feel guilty about, or to show that they do not ''actively support it''.
If a Synagogue is shot up, which has been done, have there been calls to the population to wear Kippahs or veils to distance themselves from their inherent anti-Semitism?
If that man in Milan succeeded in torching 51 children yesterday, which he had planned to do, would he be suffering from some kind of phobia - Europhobia, childophobia, Italophobia - for which the people of Senegal, or other Muslims, must wear some item of cultural clothing to disavow their part in that ''phobia''.

It's just silly. There is not this widespread ingrained Islamophobia for which ordinary people must atone. It is a word that substitutes for blasphemy really.

Who is calling for people to wear the hijab?

Kippah's btw are worn by men - and as we have seen there doesn't seem to any issue anywhere with what men wear on their heads or why they wear it. Jewish women (with the exception of married Orthodox women and their wigs that I previously referred to) don't have an item of head wear associated with their religion so it would be hard to wear one in solidarity.

And anyone who hates any group of people because of their skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity is phobic. Wearing a hijab on a certain occasion such as on the one week anniversary of this appalling hate crime is to my way of thinking no different to straight people wearing rainbow badges and sporting rainbow flags in the aftermath of the homophobic murders at Pulse.
It is a visual way of showing respect and rejecting the politics and ideologies of hate.

'Blasphemy'? - bit hyperbolic.

I assume in this instance this woman's hijab was ripped off because it made hijacking her car easier?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6832899/Pregnant-Muslim-woman-hijab-torn-thrown-ground-carjacking.html

This woman's headscarf.. I mean hijab... was so threatening it gave a man the right to just rip it off her head in front of her 3 year old child?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4611206/Hate-crime-probe-Muslim-woman-s-hijab-torn-off.html

Presumably this student's hijab was being disruptive in class forcing the teacher to take drastic action.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Student-Teacher-Ripped-Hijab-Off-My-Head-at-School-458071843.html

How very dare this woman wear an item on clothing on a London street that looks very much like the item of clothing the British Queen wears frequently.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-woman-attack-london-hate-crime-hijab-ripped-off-man-a7484851.html

This girl's hijab was pink so obvs she was asking for it...
https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/28/sister-of-syrian-refugee-waterboarded-by-bullies-is-also-attacked-at-school-8188542/

Would you like more examples of how this isn't a issue?

batgoat

Zorya wrote: »

The first post is the post I was responding to. The murderer may be Islamophobic, but the people shot are not ''victims of Islamophobia in the west''. They are victims of the murderer who was Islamophobic. It is different and the difference is important because it contextualises the wider response.To drive a narrative of rampant Islamophobia in the west is false and dangerous. If they were victims of a murderer who was schizophrenic we would not say they are victims of schizophrenia in the west and seek to atone generally for the existence of such in the west. I am using schizophrenia as an example of severely disordered thinking, and not as any aspersion to people who experience it.

Problem with that argument is that there is plenty of rampant Islamophobia in the west. This very thread has had plenty users guilty of such. A thread about 50 people who were murdered and it gets responses like that. An Australian Senator said in the wake of it, that the reason for the attacks boiled down to Muslims immigration. So ya, given some of the responses that this attack has garnered, plenty of Islamophobia in the west.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 For example it now doesn't limit how many rounds a .22 mag can hold, nor does it mention pump action shotguns and how many they can have in their magazines. Never mind that .22LR and even .22 magnum rounds are somehow seen as OK and "safe". They don't have a lot of stopping power compared to a 9m or 7.62 no, but they can be just as deadly in the right/wrong circumstances. EG: shooting in Finland where eleven were murdered by a kid with a .22 pistol(a round fired from a pistol has lower energy compared to the same round from a longer barrelled rifle). Another Finnish example with another kid with a .22 pistol. Eight murdered. They're on a tragic roll on this one. Bobby Kennedy was murdered with a .22. I seem to recall reading the stat that the .22 kills more people than any other single calibre in the US. Now there would be a shedload more of them out there so that swings the stats. Still.

I thought there was no mass shootings in Finland?

The argument that this gun kills people why ban this other gun is pretty nonsensical.

If that lad in Finland had a higher caliber more powerful weapon he probably would have killed more, one lady who was shot in the head actually survived.

Talk to any Trauma Surgeon with experience in gun shot wounds and they will explain the stark difference in being hit with different caliber bullets.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Just think it is important not to buy into rampant Islamophobia in the west hype and etc etc

Nobody asked you to do that.

This guy was a racist cowardly scumbag who attacked and murdered 50 people primarily because of their religion.

I don't see how you could need clarity on that like you have been calling for.

Silly really.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Nobody asked you to do that.

This guy was a racist cowardly scumbag who attacked and murdered 50 people primarily because of their religion.

I don't see how you could need clarity on that like you have been calling for.

Silly really.

Okay we will leave it at that.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

The argument that this gun kills people why ban this other gun is pretty nonsensical.

Which is pretty much what the NZ gov is doing. If they'd gone and banned every class of firearm but .22 bolt actions or single shot and two barrelled shotguns I'd have more respect and faith that it wasn't knee jerk grandstanding for votes.

If that lad in Finland had a higher caliber more powerful weapon he probably would have killed more, one lady who was shot in the head actually survived.

He murdered all but one he fired at. Same for the second muppet. The NZ killer left a load of injured survivors.

Talk to any Trauma Surgeon with experience in gun shot wounds and they will explain the stark difference in being hit with different caliber bullets.

And they'll also tell you the major trauma inflicted by a shotgun at close range, yet pump action shotguns are off the NZ radar, as are revolvers, lever actions etc of any calibre, instead they've the horn for "semiautomatics" because that's what the uninformed among the electorate see as the big issue.

o1s1n

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wearing a hijab on a certain occasion such as on the one week anniversary of this appalling hate crime is to my way of thinking no different to straight people wearing rainbow badges and sporting rainbow flags in the aftermath of the homophobic murders at Pulse.
It is a visual way of showing respect and rejecting the politics and ideologies of hate.

Not really though and you are conflating religion (something you chose to be) with sexuality (something you are born to)

Wearing a hijab in solidarity on the anniversary of this atrocity has to be the most cringe worthy, back patting things I've ever heard of.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it is insulting to people who follow Islam.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Which is pretty much what the NZ gov is doing. If they'd gone and banned every class of firearm but .22 bolt actions or single shot and two barrelled shotguns I'd have more respect and faith that it wasn't knee jerk grandstanding for votes.

You wouldn't though, you'd be moaning that they were over reaching.

Anyway it seems they have banned the spree shooters weapons of choice like they did Australia which did have an tangible effect.

All legislation is fluid, let them ban again in the future if they want.

Wibbs wrote: »

And they'll also tell you the major trauma inflicted by a shotgun at close range, yet pump action shotguns are off the NZ radar, as are revolvers, lever actions etc of any calibre, instead they've the horn for "semiautomatics" because that's what the uninformed among the electorate see as the big issue.

Well no it's calibre.

You have a far greater chance of surviving a lower calibre round. That's not my opinion.

But I don't really see the problem, stricter gun control laws is a good thing. I can't see how anyone would have an issue with it TBH, especially someone not living in NZ.

Bannasidhe

o1s1n wrote: »

Not really though and you are conflating religion (something you chose to be) with sexuality (something you are born to)

Wearing a hijab in solidarity on the anniversary of this atrocity has to be the most cringe worthy, back patting things I've ever heard of.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it is insulting to people who follow Islam.

Well, In many ways religion is something you are born into - which is why so many people in Ireland tick Roman Catholic on the census without ever setting foot in church bar weddings, funerals, and baptisms to get the child into the school of choice.

The point being - as I am sure you are aware - that it is a symbol of solidarity to people whose lives have been taken due to a hatred that does not affect them personally. A hatred they will never experience. A way of saying this act was not committed in our name. We reject it.

Perhaps you think it is cringe worthy. My friends from Muslim backgrounds (both practicing and now atheist) disagree.


As I have said - it's amazing how people can get so worked up about a simple gesture of wearing a headscarf.

Danzy

Yurt! wrote: »

Ali Selim is perfectly entitled proffer his views, as much as I disagree with them. The mystery is why the Irish media has annointed him and the Clonskeagh Mosque crowd as the spokespeople for Muslims in Ireland. Leo et al need to do a bit of thinking as to why they're the crowd that get the PR visits around Ramadan etc as well.

It must stick in the craw of the more moderate members of the community who just want to get on with things and practice their faith in peace without being linked with Selim's regressive ramblings.

Clonskeagh as a whole organization leadership is dominated by people that would be far to the right of Franco.

Billy86

Zorya wrote: »

Was there a campaign for solidarity Kippahs to show we don't actively support anti-Semitism?

Literally thousands of people around the world showed up to show solidarity in response to that, which was clearly and correctly identified as an anti Semitic attack.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4626903/show-up-for-shabbat-pittsburgh-shooting-victims/amp/

Muslim communities also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars following that attack in Pittsburgh, which has led to the Jewish Association of America setting up a fund for Christchurch in response.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/17/us/new-zealand-terror-attack-jewish-community-fundraiser-trnd/index.html

Maybe I missed it in the thread, but I don't recall anyone taking issue with support being shown for the synagogue attack, yet at the same time I can't even say I'm surprised that some do when it comes to a mosque being attacked.

Baggly

Mod

Thank you to those who reported posts you have an issue with, rather than engaging with them.


Also,


Babycheeses, do not post in this thread again.

Grayson

o1s1n wrote: »

Not really though and you are conflating religion (something you chose to be) with sexuality (something you are born to)

Wearing a hijab in solidarity on the anniversary of this atrocity has to be the most cringe worthy, back patting things I've ever heard of.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it is insulting to people who follow Islam.

I was wondering about that when I heard about it. I can see some muslims getting annoyed with it. Still I can see some welcoming the move. I guess it depends on the spirit it's done in.

Hector Savage

New Zealand bookshop has banned Jordan Petersons book in response to the attacks.
How can they even BEGIN to blame JP for this ?

Hector Savage

Odhinn wrote: »

Who are these people? Quotes and links please.

Just look at the media slant on things, and people's response.

The examiner article posted has plenty of examples of this.

Odhinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

Just look at the media slant on things, and people's response.

The examiner article posted has plenty of examples of this.

They seemed to be flying the notion that there should be some more education on Islam in schools. Given some of the horrific ****e that passes as commentary in the public sphere its not a bad notion. Nor is it replacing the church with Islam.