Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

batgoat

donaghs wrote: »

Who and where exactly are these "communities" you keep referring too? It sounds like you are talking a few people who appeared in the media in specific parts of the world, who you are using to represent millions from around the world who only have some shared religious beliefs in common.

Ah so if it's reported, it doesn't count. Anyway the below is in relation to the US and a fund raised by the Islamic community. Pittsburgh's Jewish community is presently raising money for those in New Zealand as well. But all this does not count according to the ridiculous parameters you laid out...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/29/us-muslims-charity-pittsburgh-synangogue-shooting-victims

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

We haven't done it enough in the west for long enough to see anything tangible

Oh right, so your musings are not based on anything resembling tangible evidence?

I thought as much.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/3/27/18284174/facebook-ban-white-nationalist-separatist-content

4 days into the job. :pac:

What an absolute solid gold grade A Díckhead.

Hope he enjoys picking fruit.

Gael23

Funny how something of such magnitude vanishes from news headlines. I know Brexit is taking over a lot that said

riffmongous

suicide_circus wrote: »

they have given his donation to a charity for the mosque victims

I guess they have changed their tune since last Thursday when they were hanging out a banner reading 'stop the great replacement' eh?

batgoat

riffmongous wrote: »

I guess they have changed their tune since last Thursday when they were hanging out a banner reading 'stop the great replacement' eh?

I'm a bit weirded out that circus is trying to find merits in the Neo Nazis...

Gael23

Gael23 wrote:

Funny how something of such magnitude vanishes from news headlines. I know Brexit is taking over a lot that said

What do you mean? Your answer will be quite telling

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Well again, I can only go on the news report that was linked and didn't see anything in it that stated that he was on a hate filled rant.

He said he didn't use any offensive language and stated facts.

I have no reason to believe different.

So by your logic if there was a discussion about the holocaust in a workplace it would be acceptable to go off on one about all the faults that jewish people have?

I think you'd be sacked fairly lively.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote:

So by your logic if there was a discussion about the holocaust in a workplace it would be acceptable to go off on one about all the faults that jewish people have?

Yes. I think a factual discussion with people who wanted to engage in a conversation would be absolutely fine.

Mad.

Gael23

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you mean? Your answer will be quite telling

It was getting almost continuous news coverage for several days and now it’s as of it never happened in the media apart from a very short reference

TomSweeney

So they've banned white supremacy groups ... ok - but ISIS beheadings are grand like!

Skylinehead

TomSweeney wrote: »

So they've banned white supremacy groups ... ok - but ISIS beheadings are grand like!

No, if you'd actually read the bloody thread you'd see that those are banned too.

Gael23

Gael23 wrote:

It was getting almost continuous news coverage for several days and now it’s as of it never happened in the media apart from a very short reference

It is unfortunately a footnote. It barely registers on the Richter scale of outrage. There will be some bullsh1t gunlaws put in place and some platitudes. Realistically though, you, me and they don't care.

I wish it never happened. But until it effects your life directly you won't genuinely care. You will feel bad and wish it never happened. But you won't genuinely care. And you shouldn't. So much horror happens that if you took it all to heart, it would be hard to live.

But something equally as bad, if not worse will happen next week.

It's horrible but it's true

Ash.J.Williams

BBFAN wrote: »

So by your logic if there was a discussion about the holocaust in a workplace it would be acceptable to go off on one about all the faults that jewish people have?

I think you'd be sacked fairly lively.

Unless you did it in a funny way

TomSweeney

Nixonbot wrote: »

No, if you'd actually read the bloody thread you'd see that those are banned too.

Took them a long long time to ban them.


And there are plenty of islamist groups still on FB

Skylinehead

TomSweeney wrote: »

Took them a long long time to ban them.


And there are plenty of islamist groups still on FB

When were they banned?

BBFAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I think a factual discussion with people who wanted to engage in a conversation would be absolutely fine.

Mad.

Mad is the right word alright. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

Oh right, so your musings are not based on anything resembling tangible evidence?

I thought as much.

If you have evidence of the effects of banning violent extremist propaganda I'd be interested to see what you're going off, genuinely. I'd like to see the reduction in related violence that you are alluding to. I'd also like to see measurements of the medium to long term effects on press freedom, or some other indicator of the health of the democracy. Because we know that in the countries where censorship is the worst, it usually gets there incrementally.

New zealanders can go to jail for possessing what was a publicly available document, a completely relevant communication. I'm not sure but that may be completely unprecedented in western democracies? How many terrorists attacks have we had where countries for some reason didn't think it would be a good idea?

We see what happens when countries go down that path so one step in that direction can't be considered good imo. Putin used almost the exact same language to justify his crackdown on the internet, calling it the 'weapon of extremism'. Then he gets more bold and goes after 'gay propoganda' with the justification of protecting children. No, I'm not comparing NZ government to Putin's, just illustrating how its dangerous not to oppose these justifications for censorship in every instance, despite the pleas to protect children.

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If you have evidence of the effects of banning violent extremist propaganda I'd be interested to see what you're going off, genuinely. I'd like to see the reduction in related violence that you are alluding to. I'd also like to see measurements of the medium to long term effects on press freedom, or some other indicator of the health of the democracy. Because we know that in the countries where censorship is the worst, it usually gets there incrementally.

It's your thesis not mine

I simply asked you a question why you came to your conclusion.

You couldn't answer it, I don't see why it should be up to me to answer it, it's not my conclusion.

Kivaro

I have no clue about the shooter. Don't know his name, or anything else about him, and really don't care.
But I will remember the name Farid Ahmed.

He said he forgave and loved his attacker.
"I want a heart that will be full of love and care and full of mercy and will forgive lavishly. This heart doesn't want any more lives to be lost.

Here is a clip of him speaking at the national remembrance service in Christchurch today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/christchurch-attack-mosque-survivor-forgives-attacker-190329030357921.html

A prime example of good rising out of a terrible event.

eviltwin

Kivaro wrote: »

I have no clue about the shooter. Don't know his name, or anything else about him, and really don't care.
But I will remember the name Farid Ahmed.

He said he forgave and loved his attacker.
"I want a heart that will be full of love and care and full of mercy and will forgive lavishly. This heart doesn't want any more lives to be lost.

Here is a clip of him speaking at the national remembrance service in Christchurch today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/christchurch-attack-mosque-survivor-forgives-attacker-190329030357921.html

A prime example of good rising out of a terrible event.

They played that clip on the news earlier. I will admit I had tears listening to him. I don't think I could be anywhere near as forgiving and generous of heart as Mr Ahmed. I will be thinking about him and his words for a long time.

Sand

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

It seems self-defeating. Firstly, the document was in circulation for days/weeks prior to this ban. Anyone who wanted it has it. Secondly, the ban only extends as far as the NZ government can enforce it, which is not very far. Thirdly, Brenton Tarrant is going to go on trial and represent himself. He intends to use the trial to justify his actions which will by default draw upon the manifesto. The NZ government will be simultaneously banning the manifesto while providing Tarrant with a platform in his trial. Fourthly, it's not helpful: if you're relying on the media to inform you what is in that manifesto then you are uninformed. Fifth, rightly or wrongly it communicates fear of the manifesto. Napoleon said you should never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. The NZ government should have displayed more confidence in their people than they have.

Its part of the reaction to be seen to 'do something' in response to the killings. Tarrant was very clear that he wanted to spark an increased clampdown on gun ownership and any non "progressive" views. The reaction so far ( further gun control, further restrictions on free speech, further repression of non-violent groups) is what he intended. He is an accelerationist, and he wants to provoke an overreaction to force people to choose a side. He absolutely wants to prevent any compromise, any non-peaceful outcome. Its a line of thinking common to vanguard terrorist groups. They commit atrocities to force an overreaction which they believe will force neutrals into outright support or outright opposition.

The reality is there is little or nothing that can be done to prevent a certain level of atrocity when you compel different groups to share the same territory. Inter-communal strife and radicalisation is part and parcel of living in a multi-cultural society. Always has been, always will be. This is the future that is being created today. We may as well buckle up and get used to it.

Cat Stevens aka Yusaf Islam (he converted long ago) played at the memorial service......here he is calling for the (burning to) death of Salman Rushdie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYnWtPytvhI

https://catstevens.com/christchurch-memorial-service/
At the memorial service:

Yusuf’s address in full:

Our hearts go out to the families of those whose lives were snatched away in that evil carnage while they were worshipping in the Mosque two weeks ago.

We learn about things through their opposites and it’s through opposites like this, the evilness of that act and what drove it, we find its opposite which is the love and kindness and unity which has sprung up right here in New Zealand. And, that love and unity is actually what all the Prophets and Messengers of the Divine taught.

The last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that all of the Prophets are brothers. Their mothers are different but the religion is one. And, I think that’s the message which a lot of people who have, or profess faith should come back to, because that is the centre. And, our prayers go to those shining souls whose lives were snatched away in that moment of madness may peace be upon them. Peace in this world may take a bit longer.

I’m gonna sing a song for you now.

background for those who dont know:

The Satanic Verses controversy, also known as the Rushdie Affair, was the heated and frequently violent reaction of Muslims to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, which was first published in the United Kingdom in 1988 and inspired in part by the life of Muhammad. Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief and in 1989 the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. Numerous killings, attempted killings, and bombings resulted from violent Muslims over the novel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy

''Although Yusuf now denies supporting attempts to murder Salman Rushdie, he is on record at the time for stating that he wanted to see Mr Rushdie himself burn - not just an effigy of him - and he would like to have reported Mr Rushdie's whereabouts to those who were trying to murder him,'' Mr Kavanagh said.

He said the folk singer had since used copyright to remove ''statements by Mr Rushdie that Yusuf wanted him dead'' from the internet.

Mr Kavanagh called on Immigration Minister Chris Evans to deny Islam a visa ''unless he publicly and categorically states that he does not and will not support the murder of any person for the expression of views, no matter how offensive''.

A spokesman for Senator Evans said visa decisions were a matter for the department, not the minister.

Islam has repeatedly denied supporting the fatwa, saying his comments were only a reference to blasphemy being a capital offence according to the Koran.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/mp-wants-cat-stevens-barred-for-fatwa-view-20100527-whof.html


Well the youtube link is there to watch in the prior post if you want to hear exactly what he said - and its quite clear what he said and meant. He is certainly not the right person to have at that memorial and I would wonder who requested him. The West in general seems to be quite gutless and misguided these days. I also think the craze to wear the scarves was foolish too.

"We got the invitation from Prime Minister's office."

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1474481/world

batgoat

Meanwhile Blindjustice seems to primarily ignore the actual atrocity that occurred...

Mysterypunter

batgoat wrote: »

Meanwhile Blindjustice seems to primarily ignore the actual atrocity that occurred...

Is his singing that bad? On a serious note there are a lot of double standards and injustices in the world. One of the ones in this case is the biker gangs, notoriously violent drug traffickers standing outside mosques a week after the attack. Maybe its just cynical me, but I think they only did that to act the hero. RIP to all the people killed, mostly ordinary everyday people just trying their best, like most of these attacks

Wibbs

If I could thank your post more I would S. Though on one point:

Sand wrote: »

Brenton Tarrant is going to go on trial and represent himself. He intends to use the trial to justify his actions which will by default draw upon the manifesto. The NZ government will be simultaneously banning the manifesto while providing Tarrant with a platform in his trial.

I'll lay a bet that there will be some angle invoked to have this trial in camera and it won't be public.

The_Kew_Tour

Kivaro wrote: »

I have no clue about the shooter. Don't know his name, or anything else about him, and really don't care.
But I will remember the name Farid Ahmed.

He said he forgave and loved his attacker.
"I want a heart that will be full of love and care and full of mercy and will forgive lavishly. This heart doesn't want any more lives to be lost.

Here is a clip of him speaking at the national remembrance service in Christchurch today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/christchurch-attack-mosque-survivor-forgives-attacker-190329030357921.html

A prime example of good rising out of a terrible event.

Fair play, that's unreal

I don't think I could be so forgiving if I was in those shoes

Mad_maxx

Even for a kiwi, the PM has an annoying accent