Hatred...and a Massacre (Christchurch)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
You main post is exactly correct, NOW write it again but insert Muslim Terrorists as the perpetrators.All of this begs one question only from anyone.
WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
Muslim terrorists have committed many atrocities against innocent people including children. So just tell me why is it a surprise that an anti Muslim nutjob retaliates in kind. I am more surprised that there have not been many more.
A person can only turn the other cheek for so long.
Ah but you can try the sympathy card "Oh, but they're women and children, innocents". But what about all the innocents the other terrorists have killed?

originally posted by: Macenroe82
I just pray that another wack job doesn't attempt a retaliation attack.

Thats part of the story here.....the way the press covers different types of terrorism.

Most glaring is the way multiple terror events preformed by one group is not indicative of the whole of that group or nationality, race and so on but this guys terror is being used to blame an entire race and culture.

Its very clear the press coverage and spin demonstrates sympathies.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not sure I agree entirely. I agree with the notion that evil exists, and will likely always exist, but I'm not sure I agree with the notion that this event is no different (and perhaps that's not what you were suggesting).

I think this even was different, in that it specifically identified the media as the tool which would spread the hatred. It specifically cited that as the intent, and much of the motivation. That, I think, is different. I'm confident most thinking people understand that the media is the underpinning reason for terrorism's increase in effectiveness over the past century. However, never before has the media been specifically called upon to fan the flames of political, racial and religious divide. Never have they been called out like that before, so sow the seeds of war itself. And, been acknowledged in such a way...then to watch it happen before our very eyes.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I disagree,

The shooter was not spreading his hate. He spearheading fertilizer for people to plant their own hate in. To me, a huge difference

This guys the ultimate troll. He’s Wants world wide negative reactions.

Not my point, but here you go. en.wikipedia.org...

Carry-on

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The shooters mistake (other than existing) is to think that the hatred the media spews would be any different from the hatred the media already spews.

My question would be, "When HASN'T the media spewed hatred, division, vitriol?"

a reply to: crayzeed

Well, two things...

First, I don't disagree with your premise, but the fact that a seemingly anti-muslim actor perpetrated this act actually adds strength to the argument not takes it away. And to understand this you have to look at the undertones. It seems patently obvious at first glance this piece of excrement was anti-Muslim, what with his "invaders" diatribe, but why then the whole other part about desiring civil war, political divide and hatred. Rantings of a lunatic perhaps, but I think there's more to it. This piece of excrement didn't want to only get rid of Muslims, he wants...WAR! I seriously wonder if he didn't just pick Muslims because he knew:
a.) The Muslims will almost certainly retaliate (i.e. more violence, murder and hate), and...
b.) The anti-Muslim Terrorist vs. "peaceful culture" mantra is a massive political "hot button" the World over right now.

Second, I too am somewhat surprised there have not been more examples of anti-Muslim retaliation, but that's kind of beside the point. The real interesting element here is more how he clearly states he's intentionally using the media to spread this hatred and acknowledging its effectiveness. That part is different. The media is always assumed in a terror attack, otherwise terrorism wouldn't be effective, right? But if the end-game was truly to just get rid of the "invaders", then why use the media to incite hatred across such a broad spectrum of non-Muslim culture, politics and people?

a reply to: Plotus

Well, as I clearly stated, the Syrian Civil War is more about Muslims killing other Muslims than anything to do with what happened in Christchurch. That's not terrorism as much as an actual 'civil war'...the merits of which are clearly off-topic here.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ahhh, but you see, the media "gets away" with spewing all that hatred, division and vitriol under the guise of it being "News" (i.e. The most trusted name in "news"; Facts first, etc)

In this particular case, the perpetrator has specifically called out the media to assist in spreading his hate...NOT his "news".

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

EXACTLY!

This wasn't about Muslims, or white supremacy, or left, or right...it was about one thing and one only...HATE, WAR and ANARCHY! More, more...MOAR!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I agree he's used the media to promote his warped ideology but I think the more important question is how and why the media is pushing this. Quite as easily the media could have down played the incident ie. how many times have you seen the media giving minimal information when it's a Muslim attack?
For a start not even mentioning a "terrorist" incident when clearly it is and they know it. The media knowing the nationality and religion of the perpetrator and not giving that information. Many, many times this has shown to be true yet they use this incident from the start pushing the atrocities.
I think the media is more to blame than the perpetrator, without them the world wouldn't have known.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well written and very true.
This poor excuse for a human being was trying to inspire hatred and division, lets not let him win.
ATS' moto comes to mind, deny ignorance!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The shooters mistake (other than existing) is to think that the hatred the media spews would be any different from the hatred the media already spews.

My question would be, "When HASN'T the media spewed hatred, division, vitriol?"

Bingo!

This is how they make their money and increase views. Division and hatred drive ratings a which in turn means profit.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you view this event from the standpoint of HATE, WAR and ANARCHY, then what?

How do you start a reform towards a better world? Do you think we were justified by invading Syria? And yes it is all related, intimately tied together.

Unless the problems are easier to separate, then with that mindset we will never solve this issue and back to the sport of political game watching we go.

a reply to: crayzeed

I completely agree.

AND, therein lies the solution! If the media didn't focus on things the way they do these things wouldn't be as effective.

Now, in this case, they've been directly called upon to do exactly what they do best. In other words, they've been exposed for who they truly are.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: IAMTAT

I disagree,

The shooter was not spreading his hate. He spearheading fertilizer for people to plant their own hate in. To me, a huge difference

This guys the ultimate troll. He’s Wants world wide negative reactions.

This is so true! He wants people on all sides to see each other as the enemy.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you view this event from the standpoint of HATE, WAR and ANARCHY, then what?

Well, then people begin to see it for what it is. They see it for nothing more than these things. That it solves nothing.

How do you start a reform towards a better world?

First by learning and understanding the outside factors which influence opinion, and changing those things. By realizing their agenda. Blood sells advertisements.

Do you think we were justified by invading Syria?

I'm probably the wrong guy for you to ask this question to. My answer; absolutely NOT! We have no business in their war, no dog in the fight and we should withdraw from the Middle East entirely. Let them fight it out.

Any problem can be solved. Some just have more variables than others.

a reply to: Kurokage

Precisely!

That is the real goal here.

And, he's wants the media to help him get to his end-game.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I agree, we as a nation for freedom should set an example and stop killing people the world over. We should lead by example. Do you think it is at all hypocritical of us as a country to condemn this senseless killing when we are doing the same thing in syria?

Do you think there are ideologies out there that are incompatible with each other?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Something stinks about the blame game in this catastrophe. He's travelled the "world" going to Asian and Muslim countries, his manifesto contains both alt-left and alt-right craziness, the alleged hand signal that sounds like it's just being made up and of course the alt-left media jumping on this like a pack of rabid hyenas and sun baked vultures, so quick to blame the "right."

When I worked for the military and ci, the rule was plausible deniability in ANY action. That means you divert blame to someone else or some other group, you pre-lay the seeds of doubt so blame can be easily assigned and used effectively against your enemy. It's part and parcel of any good hegelian dielectric operation to produce a desired result.

I think we have to wait and see who this scumbag was working for and I am under the impression it will likely come as a shock as this massacre fits a very specific false flag profile.

Cheers - Dave