Hatred...and a Massacre (Christchurch)

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.
And, the only news story which ever should have run about him should have simply said...
"The terrorist shooter who perpetrated the murders in Christchurch has been apprehended, identity confirmed and executed."
No mention of names, no mentions of manifestos...no glory. Just 'executed'.

Summery execution...no due process. Hmmmm...I think that's the scariest by-product of this appalling act that I have yet read.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

And this could be complete bunk, but they think he even traveled to pakistan the year before:

Alleged mosque shooter's recent travels outside NZ

The owner of the Osho Thang Hotel spoke to RNZ, saying Tarrant stayed at the hotel on 22 and 23 October 2018.

The hotel owner said he spoke to Tarrant only a few times and did not know why he had travelled to Pakistan.

He asked Tarrant to put up a Facebook post, which was a bit like signing the visitor book.

In the post, the accused said he was visiting Pakistan for the first time. He called it an incredible place filled with the most earnest, kind hearted and hospitable people in the world.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Well, as I noted to Plotus, the merits (or lack thereof) of what is going on in the Syrian Civil War is really another topic, and one not directly related to what happened in Christchurch. It's arguable if it's indirectly related, but in any case it's not really the point here.

I'm not dodging your question, but what I am saying is the conflict in Syria is more complicated than a simple "yes/no" answer could provide, and would be well off-topic to go into detail. Do I think we should be there? No. Do I think it's hypocritical to comment as I have here given the US involvement in Syria? No, but this is where the dialog gets more complicated because, for example, Assad needs to go (and then face a tribunal for war crimes, IMHO), and that's all I'll say about that here, but as you can see this is a rabbit hole which is far off the point.

To your last question, I'll have to ponder this a little more. My first reaction is, yes, there are ideologies which are not compatible and never will be. And, I think this is partly true where countries war machine is connected to their religious beliefs and really nothing else. Again, topic for another thread perhaps, but I'll think some more on it.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

You took it the wrong way. In fact, that is why I inserted the words "Identity confirmed". What I meant by that was due process had taken place without media involvement.

I was not in any way suggesting no due process. So, don't try to put those words in my mouth as that was not my intent.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Fair enough and thank you for the reply. I am just trying to think of a way to get past all of the drama, real or manufactured, and find out where the heart of the issue is. I just don't believe we are looking into the right direction of resolving these type of deeds.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You know, there is definitely a possibility of that. There is no doubt whatsoever that there is a very big "mind-F#" element to this event. No doubt at all. This isn't your average "jihadi" here, no way.

So yes, we will have to wait and see. There could very well be a government actor behind this, given how oddly this all went down and how carefully orchestrated it all was. There are definitely some things which smell fishy, but for the time being it appears like these guys acted alone and were not sponsored. Time will tell if it evolves into something else.

For the record, here are some examples of things I find very odd with all of this:

1. Why Muslims...in New Zealand of all places??? Lot's more volatile areas could have been chosen.
2. Such a carefully thought out and orchestrated plot. If it wasn't so tragic, one might even say it borders on twisted evil genius.
3. The "manifesto"...so carefully crafted to not take a position on anything, yet at the same time turn all sides against each other to the point of violence. Incidentally, this is why the manifesto is being so heavily censored. It is a very damaging and inflammatory document!
4. And finally, it seems to me the actual attack was really intended to draw attention to the manifesto more so than the attack itself. "Hey, look at me!" Again, that's not the kind of stuff your average nut job comes up with. Normally it's the other way around.

ETA - At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter. The net result is the same, and the message is the same. A conspiracy within a conspiracy doesn't change anything.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Reign in the media for one thing. Get back to reporting the facts, rather than the opinions and partisan spin doctoring. This would be a good start. Stop with the speculation and identity politics on everything.

I think New Zealand because in most other places that have been affected by Muslim terrorism he would have been shot dead, like most mass shooters are.
I get the feeling that besides publicising his sarcasm & humour ladened "manifesto" (which is strange for a mass killer in the first place!) he wants his day in court, although why is anyone's guess.

It has already been released by the police that psychologists have found him not psychotic in any way. I don't think he is either, he wasn't your normal ranting raving loony, he seems unlike most profiles of this kind, meticulous cool calm intelligent playful even with his quips about Spyro the Dragon and other comments, and today even in court there was none of the usual ranting and yelling that so many (who survive arrest) display.

He did, it seems, travel to pakistan a year ago where he described the people as "some of the warmest kindest hospitable people in the world".....then something changed

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

A voice of reason. Thank you for this post.

The two ends of the political spectrum do not define humanity. I hope that people can understand this. The flames of hatred need no fanning...so stop stoking the fire. Don't divide humanity...unite humanity.

The shooter is a murderer and a terrorist. There should be no fame for him. He should be buried in an unmarked grave in a non-disclosed location. He should have no press coverage. He should have nothing but the dregs of obscurity, a footnote in his own memoirs.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Yes, this one does not fit the mold at all, not anywhere even close.

Every single action is carefully planned and calmly executed. Just now there is a picture circulating of him at his arraignment and flashing a hand signal similar to that of the old "circle game" which the alt-left has now demonized as a symbol of white supremacy, when in fact it means nothing more than 'look at me'.

Everything about this guy is a double entendre, about multiple meanings and about playing all sides against the middle.

There's WAY more to this douche muffin than meets the eye, but the "game" is clear, crystal clear. If we're smart, like I hope we are, we as a society will see it for what it is and seize upon it as a golden opportunity to change things for the better, and a clear warning of the trap which lies ahead.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I would go a little further and say...

Unite humanity, that which wants to be united. Allow that which does not to exist in it's own world. Recognize that some humanity does not wish to be united, but rather to dominate all of humanity. Do not force integration of these societies, but rather recognize their differences and draw clear lines of what behavior is accepted in each of them. The oceans will never boil, and to expect they will is nothing more than a fool's errand.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Once again

But that solution sounds a lot like segregation/selective association/discrimination. Have you thought about what terms would be acceptable for selective association within a certain area or demographic? Let us say that only 50% of a particular demographic/ideology is blood thirsty, do we have the right to discriminate against the whole? If not, at what percentage is using stereotypes acceptable in trying to protect yourself and the area in which a person resides?

Where do our rights being and another persons stop?

a reply to: ClovenSky

VERY complicated answer! A person could write an entire doctoral thesis on something like this and not even come close to answering it all. I know I personally could write an entire book on the subject and only graze the surface.

I guess the only summary level response I have is...I'm talking at a cultural level, not at a intra -country / state level.

ETA - And another thing, I don't think you can mandate those things and impose them on other people. I think you have to draw the lines around the majorities and then ask people what side of the line they want to be on. If this side of the line, then you live by these rules. Don't like those rules, then you're not on this side of the line. Decision is theirs. (very over-simplified high level overview)

Dbl

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah but if we all sit around and talk about how evil the entire left is for the words of a few, then we just do what the killer wanted. Hate the other side!

Shame to anyone who uses a madman's rampage to ignite political left vs right talk...

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah but if we all sit around and talk about how evil the entire left is for the words of a few, then we just do what the killer wanted. Hate the other side!

Shame to anyone who uses a madman's rampage to ignite political left vs right talk...

Yes anyone saying the entire left is evil would also he playing in to that

Haven’t seen that thankfully

a reply to: blueman12

Don't forget though...the same can be said on both sides of the fence.

The left can't demonize the right for the deeds of a few either. And vice versa.

It's a black kettle and a pot, a goose and a gander...and a great big gagging spoonful of hypocrisy.

originally posted by: crayzeed
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?

Exactly correct - unfortunately this blowback is inevitable. It's a product of globalism.
No doubt some other nutters are going to add more of the same over the coming years.

a reply to: crayzeed


But the fact still remains that an Australian national, killed a load of Kiwis , on New Zealand soil, while the Australian government is rounding up Kiwis that have been in Australia since they were kids and deporting them back to New Zealand for petty infringements. I notice this spin has not been mentioned yet. While the Australian government is saying "we are family"

a reply to: anonentity

Hmmmm...that IS an interesting angle.

I wasn't aware there was an issue there.