Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

suicide_circus

ok sorry back on topic

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

wiki tells me their origins go back to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999.

no one would deny they filled the vaccum left my Saddam being deposed but this was a long time in the making.

They existed since 1999, but yet never had much of any prominence until the 'spreading of western culture' which killed huge amounts, which you acknowledge. This means you agree with my original statement that: asking all [westerners] to apologise or feel guilt for what this a*sehole did is every bit as stupid as the many, many times we hear AH regulars complaining about Muslims not organising "not in my name" type marches against terrorism (despite the fact that many of them do).
*The one edit being replacing 'white people' with 'westerners'.

I don't know if you are the type to complain about Muslims not marching, but if you are I hope you have organised (or arranged to attend) a few "not in my name" protests also.

To draw this back to the NZ incident, it makes it quite noteworthy how some here seem to really have taken issue with Jacinda Ardern trying to mend bridges in this way. There is even a thread that the UAE put a big 'thank you' message on the Burj Khalifa going on right now... not too surprising some are also upset over that. Hats off to her, she clearly has been doing an excellent job in response.

suicide_circus

no problem with bridge building by the PM, thats her job. and her country is small enough to effectively ban assault weapons so its the right move at the right time. my issue is more around the abject hair shirt media opportunism.

Danzy

Boggles wrote: »

Dictators / Friends of the West. It's hard to keep up.







Either way you got the comparison you called for. Maybe mull it over a bit.

Mad that those 3 dictators were progressive forces in their country, much more progressive than the populace in their countries.

Not to defend their actions.

Danzy

suicide_circus wrote: »

wiki tells me their origins go back to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999.

no one would deny they filled the vaccum left my Saddam being deposed but this was a long time in the making.

Islamic fundamentalism in the modern era can trace itself back to the 1920s, has been growing ever since, no doubt invading Iraq helped it further but the trend has been towards more Islamic values and practice for decades now.

It looks like continuing to grow for many decades to come.

The religious revival of the bible belt in America is 160 years + at this stage.

Boggles

Danzy wrote: »

Islamic fundamentalism in the modern era can trace itself back to the 1920s,

Cultivated and encouraged by the West.

But as has all ready been stated, nothing to with the topic of thread.

---

Thousands in New Zealand attend rally to fight racism in memory of Christchurch victims

Danzy

Boggles wrote: »

Cultivated and encouraged by the West.

But as has all ready been stated, nothing to with the topic of thread.

---

Thousands in New Zealand attend rally to fight racism in memory of Christchurch victims

You might disagree but they have their own motivations, ability to reason etc.

The collapse of the Caliphate in WW1 was a seismic event in the Islamic World, one could argue that it was one of the most defining events in the Islamic world in centuries.

The importation of western ideas like Socialism suppressed strict Islam for decades, at a State level, anyway.

No doubt the West did not help but this was a growing problem either way.

kowloon

suicide_circus wrote: »

no problem with bridge building by the PM, thats her job. and her country is small enough to effectively ban assault weapons so its the right move at the right time. my issue is more around the abject hair shirt media opportunism.

kunst nugget

kowloon wrote: »

A hair shirt was worn by people as a part of their pentinence. The poster is talking about the hand wringing from very small sections of the media in terms of white extremism and how we're all to blame.

kowloon

kunst nugget wrote: »

A hair shirt was worn by people as a part of their pertinence. The poster is talking about the hand wringing from very small sections of the media in terms of white extremism and how we're all to blame.

Ah, that went over my head .

kunst nugget

kowloon wrote: »

Ah, that went over my head .

My original post actually should have said pentinence instead of pertinence. It's been corrected now.

wrote:

The chief censor banned a 74-page manifesto written by the man accused of slaughtering 50 people at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.

The ban, issued yesterday, means anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to 10 years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could face 14 years

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/e00f785d-d192-42a9-8ee0-92004807144c

How do boardsies feel about that response, some posters on this thread downloaded that

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/e00f785d-d192-42a9-8ee0-92004807144c

How do boardsies feel about that response, some posters on this thread downloaded that

Absolutely ridiculous.

It makes no sense.

batgoat

So the shooter was associated with white nationalists in Austria.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1110816956339445760?s=19

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47715696

@RamaNewDelhi

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shootout-headscarves/new-zealand-women-face-praise-and-protests-for-donning-the-hijab-idUSKCN1R71Q9

- A campaign by New Zealand women including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to don headscarves as a sign of solidarity with Muslim women after the nation’s mosque shootings has divided opinion over whether the gesture was a help or a hindrance.

Ardern won widespread praise this month for putting on a black headscarf when meeting members of the Muslim community after 50 people were killed by a suspected white supremacist at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.

But the move sparked an online backlash as critics pointed out that women in conservative Muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia were forced to cover up for the sake of modesty or risk public rebuke, fines or arrest.

“When we see non-Muslim women wear the hijab in solidarity of Muslim women it is very ironic and contradictory because our experience with the hijab is not empowering or uplifting in the political sense,” said Maryam Lee, a Muslim women’s rights advocate and author in Malaysia who chooses to not wear a hijab.

“I wish she (Ardern) hadn’t (wore it) but I understand where she is coming from because she is not a Muslim and not from a Muslim majority country.”

Women across New Zealand donned headscarves last Friday as part of a Head Scarf for Harmony campaign started by a doctor who heard about a woman too scared to go out as she felt her headscarf would make her a target for terrorism.

“Why is hijab a ‘show of solidarity’ symbol for New Zealand terror attack victims,” wrote Twitter user @RamaNewDelhi. “A key part of my feminism is to question shackles that religion imposes selectively on women.”

What are boardies take on NZ donning the hijab

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-human-rights-lawyer-nasrin-soutoudeh-faces-prison-hijab-protests/

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/two-women-arrested-in-western-iran-for-removing-hijab/29810286.html

A prominent Iranian human rights lawyer has been sentenced to a total of 38 years in jail and 148 lashes in Tehran, her family say.
Nasrin Sotoudeh was charged with several national security-related offences, all of which she denies.
Rights groups strongly criticised the "shocking" sentence against the award-winning human rights activist.
Ms Sotoudeh is known for representing women who have protested having to wear the headscarf.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47531312

Wibbs

When the punishment for having a document is three times more than the proposed punishment for having the very weapons that were used in this tragedy then that is beyond eye swivelling idiocy. It's even bigger knee jerk response than any changes to the gun laws proposed. And worrying with it.

Censorship doesn't work. It's never worked. Instead it attracts more attention to and questions for the thing you're trying to censor, it almost guarantees the thing you're trying to censor gets publicised and transmitted more and almost certainly attracts more interested parties and worse lunatics to it.

If one was a conspiracy nut how does this play out? Crime scene of the worst mass murder in a country's history cleaned up within days, legally backed blanking of the perpetrator of the worst mass murder in a country's history, now legally backed censorship of the worst mass murder in your country's history. And I'll bet the farm that the next thing will be that the trial of the worst mass murderer in a country's history will not be held in public. In my opinion that's a bigger attack on the idea of a liberal democracy than the attack itself. But knee jerk will out. Sadly.

Australian tv and radio presenters are now routinely calling anyone who wants to talk about the record high migration numbers white supremacist - it used to be racist. The chatter now from the politicians is to ban 'white supremacist talk'. Its being touted as the greatest emerging terrorist threat etc etc.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/e00f785d-d192-42a9-8ee0-92004807144c

How do boardsies feel about that response, some posters on this thread downloaded that

Never looked at the document and have no interest in looking at it but that response is beyond ridiculous. What the fook are they thinking?

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Australian tv and radio presenters are now routinely calling anyone who wants to talk about the record high migration numbers a racist.

Margaret Thatcher missed a trick, she should have called those who opposed neoliberal economics racists.

Her descendents have not.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Censorship doesn't work. It's never worked.

Of course it does, in North Korea and China it is working perfectly.

What you are trying to do is conflate censorship with removal of violent propaganda, something that isn't new. Contagion and Copy Cats are not new either, this coward would be a glaring example.

But even "censorship" of actual facts work and have positive results. Very simple example.

I was reading about a bridge in the America which was a popular place for people to commit suicide, the press were asked to stop publishing the suicides.

People jumping off the bridge dropped by 90%.

No ones free speech is being trampled in NZ, they are doing something very specific, for very specific reasons.

Boggles

Boggles wrote:

No ones free speech is being trampled in NZ, they are doing something very specific, for very specific reasons.

If being in possession of a document can land you 14 years in jail, it's not about freedom of speech, it's about basic freedom.

It's very wrong and very ridiculous

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

If being in possession of a document can land you 14 years in jail, it's not about freedom of speech, it's about basic freedom.

It's very wrong and very ridiculous

Yeah, no one is getting 14 years in jail though are they?

"The ban, issued yesterday, means anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to 10 years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could face 14 years"

Yeah sorry. 10. 14 if I want to show you the document.

10 years seems fair so...

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it does, in North Korea and China it is working perfectly.

Eh... OK. But it's not. Even in a locked down totalitarian shithole like NK, people are using black market phones to pick up the interwebs along the border. In the slightly less* locked down totalitarian shithole like China people are running VPNs to bypass big brother state censorship. Humans are a curious species, it's what makes us human and if you want a beady eye on something you try to hide it.

What you are trying to do is conflate censorship with removal of violent propaganda, something that isn't new.

Every single totalitarian regime has used "violent propaganda" as an excuse for censorship. The other excuse is "for the public good". Of course it's inevitable that they're usually fine with violent propaganda when it suits the regime.

Contagion and Copy Cats are not new either, this coward would be a glaring example.

and by "hiding" him, you will almost certainly encourage more nutters.

But even "censorship" of actual facts work and have positive results. Very simple example.

I love how you parenthesise "censorship".

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, no one is getting 14 years in jail though are they?

Yeah no one is getting four years in gaol for having semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines. As usual that's a non argument. The threat is there and like I pointed out it's a bigger threat to personal liberty to have a single document on your computer or phone than having ten semiautomatic "assault rifles". If you can't see the logic disconnect and worrying idiocy of that I really don't know what to say to someone like you.





*I'd see China as being more locked down in may ways, because it's in plain sight and the majority are going along with it. Then again culturally, particular within confucianism, sees social compliance is seen as a virtue to be admired.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

"The ban, issued yesterday, means anybody caught with the document on their computer could face up to 10 years in prison, while anyone caught sending it could face 14 years"

Yeah sorry. 10. 14 if I want to show you the document.

10 years seems fair so...

I highlighted 2 important words for you.

The ban was issued last week.

There is a similar ban in place for people who keep or distribute ISIS propaganda.

Do you think that is censorship, do you think there should be no punishment for that?

Should ISIS sympathizers be allowed free reign and their "freedom of speech" and be allowed unfettered to spread their nonsense?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh... OK. But it's not. Even in a locked down totalitarian shithole like NK, people are using black market phones to pick up the interwebs along the border. In the slightly less* locked down totalitarian shithole like China people are running VPNs to bypass big brother state censorship. Humans are a curious species, it's what makes us human and if you want a beady eye on something you try to hide it.

Every single totalitarian regime has used "violent propaganda" as an excuse for censorship. The other excuse is "for the public good". Of course it's inevitable that they're usually fine with violent propaganda when it suits the regime.

and by "hiding" him, you will almost certainly encourage more nutters.

I love how you parenthesise "censorship".

Yeah no one is getting four years in gaol for having semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines. As usual that's a non argument. The threat is there and like I pointed out it's a bigger threat to personal liberty to have a single document on your computer or phone than having ten semiautomatic "assault rifles". If you can't see the logic disconnect and worrying idiocy of that I really don't know what to say to someone like you.





*I'd see China as being more locked down in may ways, because it's in plain sight and the majority are going along with it. Then again culturally, particular within confucianism, sees social compliance is seen as a virtue to be admired.

Yeah, you still haven't proved censorship doesn't work, you have just highlighted how certain people try and get around it, that wasn't your argument or your bold matter of fact statement.

Wibbs wrote: »

Censorship doesn't work. It's never worked.

In fact it does work and has worked to quite startling degrees.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I highlighted 2 important words for you.

The ban was issued last week.

There is a similar ban in place for people who keep or distribute ISIS propaganda.

Do you think that is censorship, do you think there should be no punishment for that?

Should ISIS sympathizers be allowed free reign and their "freedom of speech" and be allowed unfettered to spread their nonsense?

Yes. I don't think there should be a punative punishment for being in the possession of (what is essentially) words.

Crazy liberal thinking from me I know....

(am I not meant to be the right winger"?)

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I highlighted 2 important words for you.

Extremely important. You and I (not for the 1st time) are looking at this from two different viewpoints.

I see it as, they can choose to imprison someone for 14 years for showing someone else a document.

From what I gather you see it as "they can choose to imprison someone for 14 years for showing someone else a document.... but they mightn't".

I'd rather be sure

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I don't think there should be a punative punishment for being in the possession of (what is essentially) words.

Crazy liberal thinking from me I know....

(am I not meant to be the right winger"?)

Well as your good self said once.

Deleted User wrote: »

Inaccurate reporting/propaganda is a very real cause of a lot of society's problems as the media we consume shapes our thoughts, beliefs and values. To downplay it's importance is dangerous.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

There is a similar ban in place for people who keep or distribute ISIS propaganda.

Do you think that is censorship, do you think there should be no punishment for that?

Should ISIS sympathizers be allowed free reign and their "freedom of speech" and be allowed unfettered to spread their nonsense?

Yep. Ideas are either open in a free society or they are not.

In fact it does work and has worked to quite startling degrees.

It doesn't work for long.