-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
Yes. Neighbour lives a hundred yards from mosque, claims he saw the killer with three other people in car prior to shooting.
I did a search for the vid at Stuff but can’t find it.
Which sounds like a mistaken memory. There's video of him pulling up and parking. He's the only one in the car
It's also suspicious that the number of people witnessed matched the number of arrests. Despite the two other arrests being unrelated and at different locations
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
This article makes a salient point. Do black Christian lives matter less?
Obviously to New Zelaanders at the moment .. yes! But the world media? Supposedly liberal and hating of racism?What about 5 weeks ago in our general region?
-
it would surely have to be a fairly small circle of people in the know, be very tough to keep it all under the radar otherwise.
As for the fuckstick defending himself, what a cnut...guess it saves the taxpayer a few dollars in legal aid bills before wasting more taxpayer dollars feeding, clothing and housing him for the rest of his life.
-
Finally finished reading all of this. Good to get a sense of what was going on as it was happening live. I'm no fan of Cindy but from everyone's account on here it seems she did well under some pretty horrifying circumstances so credit where credit is due. This to seal her re-election maybe?
Think I might avoid facebook for a while. People are in shock and lashing out, there's almost a sick satisfaction from many thinking this proves their theory of a white supremacist NZ just as there is when there is an islamic terror attack and it confirms theories of islamic aggression. I guess that is natural but damn its a hell of a thing to vocalise.
The faux virtue signalling by celebs just wanting more time in the limelight over this tragedy is sickening but pales in comparison to politicians jumping on it before the bodies are even cold. Even if Anning's argument had some merit to make the statement when he did just proves just how callous and out-of-touch with humanity this guy is.
The real question now is how on earth do we stop this these tragedies from recurring? Can we put in place ideas that will actually do good or are we forever hamstrung in our current political environment to only do things that make us feel good?
Stronger gun laws may help prevent a carbon copy of this but will it tackle the larger issue? This terrorist clearly does not see certain people as humans, he's clearly a driven ideologue, if a semi-automatic wasn't available would he have have carried out the attack through other means? I'd venture he would, I've not read his 'manifesto' or whatever it is yet but I understand the choice of using firearms was intentional for the political effect it would generate, and it looks like he'll achieve that goal. Removing semi-automatic access may reduce the scale of future individual attacks many years from now as the weapons become less available but will it reduce the number of attacks? Surely these same driven people will move to other firearms, or knives, or arson, or vehicles. If we don't start addressing underlying issues are we just putting a feel-good plaster on a festering wound?
I know our mainstream media who still sadly drive much public opinion is completely unwilling to allow for mature, nuanced discussions preferring instead to paint the world as black and white and full of outrage. Until their influence goes I can't see us making any progress on this and if politicians follow their lead we're in real trouble.
Once I find it I'm going to have a read of the manifesto to try and get an understanding of this guy, I understand why the video is being suppressed but I think it is a mistake hiding this document. It needs to be available so people can pick it apart, argue against his claims maybe try and get some insight as to what we can do to stop this from happening again. I'd much rather that than it be given some holy power as some forbidden document for pockets of people on the fringes of society to have access to without the ability to hear a concise counter-argument against it.
-
This post is deleted!
-
I thought this was an excellent article in The Australian today
Be wary of blame and let’s not shut down debate
Every time there has been an attack by Muslim terrorists, we condemn the evil killing of innocents and are at pains not to blame all Muslims. It would be immoral and factually wrong to blame an entire community for the murderous actions of a few. Yet it took less that 24 hours for political ratbags to exploit cold-blooded terrorism by a white supremacist in New Zealand on Friday for their narrow-minded, illiberal political agendas.
One political ratbag, Fraser Anning, blamed the murders in Christchurch on Muslim violence. Here is a man who would rather grab a headline from his bigotry than express compassion for the murders of 50 innocent Muslims who went to a mosque to pray. Now, to the other ratbags. They may be more articulate, use fancy words, have a smoother delivery, but they, like Anning, seemed to deliberately exploit the Christchurch terrorist attacks to further their equally illiberal political agenda.
They pointed the finger at one side of politics, blaming everyone from Donald Trump to Scott Morrison, John Howard, the Murdoch press and Sky News. Some of the blame-gamers are morally reprehensible, as well as moronic. Others are more dangerous. Those who want to shut down debate, to impose their views on us, they understand that robust debate is a certain death knell for their views. On Saturday, Phillip Adams blamed Anning’s response to the terrorist attack on former prime minister Howard. Adams said that “Anning was created by Hanson … Hanson was unleashed by Howard. Never forget she began her political career as an endorsed Liberal candidate.”
It reeks of foul desperation to engage in another round of Howard-bashing 12 years after Howard left office, and 23 years after Hanson was disendorsed — repeat, disendorsed — as a Liberal candidate.
It is sinister when smart people engage in blame games for political purposes. But even when the ill-informed do it, it warrants challenging. Yassmin Abdel-Magied blamed politicians in Western nations who have been beating the Islamophobia drum. In an extended Twitter thread, she said part of her wants to say to leaders “hay (sic) the shooter is one of your sorts”. Then she settled on root cause, “the othering, the scapegoating and demonising of Muslims throughout the West. The foreign policy positions that are self-centred and neo-colonial …”
The ABC’s Annabel Crabb called it a “great, passionate thread”. Sadly, it was neither. Abdel-Magied’s claims and the terrorist attacks sit side by side like a glaring non sequitur, blank assertions, sweeping generalisations, few connecting facts.
Waleed Aly exposed himself as a hypocrite. In the past, Aly has seemingly ducked for cover about mentioning Islam when Muslim terrorists have been Muslims murdering innocent people in the name of Islam. In 2013 he told us that “terrorism is a perpetual irritant”. Imagine the irritation of the families of those slain inside two mosques in Christchurch. Not this time. When a white supremacist killed Muslims in Christchurch, Aly couldn’t mention Islam enough. Those terrorist acts on Friday are not perpetual irritants, then? Because it involved a white supremacist? To coin your words on Saturday, “don’t change your tune now”, Waleed, either consider the ideological causes of terrorism in all cases, or don’t do it in any case.
Absolutely, we should analyse the words of the white supremacist terrorist in Christchurch to understand his political motivations. Just as we should study carefully the political motivations of Muslim terrorists who kill in the name of Islam. But none of that justifies using the Christchurch terrorist attacks to further one’s political agenda.
American writer Max Boot blamed the terrorist attacks on President Trump. A gaggle of voices on Twitter blamed our Prime Minister. Online anonymous activists Sleeping Giants blamed Sky News. GetUp blamed right-wing politicians and the Murdoch press. Imran Khan blamed “the current Islamophobia post-9/11 where Islam & 1.3 billion Muslims have collectively been blamed for any act of terror by a Muslim”. Some on Twitter blamed me too. The Washington Post described Australia as “fertile ground” for murdering white supremacists.
Those playing blame games with politics are trying to paint as mainstream what happens on the fringes of politics. That attempt to tar the centre-Right with the lunacy of the far-Right is wicked, politically driven and wrong in fact. Working in reverse, the blame-gamers are also trying to present entirely legitimate debates about immigration, integration, the self-evident clash of cultures and the rise of political Islam as fringe discussions that must be shut down.
The day after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, an editor at The Saturday Paper called for laws to “penalise media outlets, and figures that consistently promote fear and hatred” and “robust laws against the spread of hate speech”. It is one thing to condemn utterly an evil white supremacist who used his warped political agenda to mow down and murder Muslims exercising their right to religious freedom in a thriving and peaceful democracy. The law will punish those who kill and incite others to violence.
But we must stand up to those who seek to exploit terrorism as an excuse to censor views and shut down people they disagree with. The blame-gamers must not succeed in shutting down my views, or others in The Australian, or on Sky News.
And don’t fall for claims that this censorship, under the ruse of clamping down on hate speech, will stamp out terrorism. Shutting down robust debates about immigration and how cultures live side by side will create more white supremacists, more unhinged, self-professed martyrs, and more people with loathsome views, like Anning. These people will thrive in the dark woods of the internet, echo-chambers nurturing their hatred and bigotry away from logical argument.
The terrorist attacks in New Zealand have reaffirmed one eternal truth. If we tolerate the intolerant, whether on the extremes of the Left or Right, we condemn the West to totalitarianism.
-
@antipodean Great article. Thanks for posting.
-
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213914
This is bloody brilliant. Throw the book at this sonufabitch
-
@canefan said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213914
This is bloody brilliant. Throw the book at this sonufabitch
I disagree.
He is a stupid kid. He shared a sick video that many were sharing and many more watched despite knowing exactly what it was, including a number of people on this forum. He also shared a stupid sick picture.
14 years max jail term per charge is absolutely ridiculous for this offence and the fact that the judge is refusing bail just shows how the legal system is far from immune from emotional hysteria. The media is of course going to have a field day at this witch burning as they will for many more in the weeks to come.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
@canefan Refused bail for sharing a vile video. That is terrifying.
Not just vile. People being shot to death in real time. I doubt he'll get anything other than a fraction of the potential punishment. But a message should be sent
-
@canefan said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
@canefan Refused bail for sharing a vile video. That is terrifying.
Not just vile. People being shot to death in real time. I doubt he'll get anything other than a fraction of the potential punishment. But a message should be sent
No. Justice should be done.
-
I actually thought this zerohedge article that flicked by my feed yesterday was most like BS. But now seeing this charge clearly its true, if you can't read it you are probably in NZ where certain ISP's have now banned the domain.
The commenting app Dissenter has also been banned in NZ.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
The app is very much the wild west but it is not what our mainstream media will have you believe. Time to invest in a VPN I think.
-
@Rembrandt How is the app banned? It's the internet.
@canefan said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
@canefan Refused bail for sharing a vile video. That is terrifying.
Not just vile. People being shot to death in real time. I doubt he'll get anything other than a fraction of the potential punishment. But a message should be sent
A message sure. But there should be immense prospect for rehabilitation, reflection and personal growth as a result of the age of the defendant. As difficult as it is for some people, everyone needs to take a step back and a deep breath. The very idea that he could be sent to gaol for 14 years as a result of sharing the video is obscene. You get less for killing people.
-
I guess he will be a guinea pig of sorts, gievn I cant recall people sharing that sort of video in NZ before?
Follow due process, for which I expect he wil get a bit of community service.
-
@taniwharugby said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
I guess he will be a guinea pig of sorts, gievn I cant recall people sharing that sort of video in NZ before?
ISIS videos were widely shared
Not sure if anyone in NZ was prosecuted for sharing objectionable content in those instances
-
@antipodean I believe dissenter.com domain is banned.
It's just so ridiculous. You had the synagogue shooting a couple months back and because that terrorist had a Gab account Gab was basically removed from the internet. Never mind the bloke also had a twitter and facebook account. This current terrorist most definitely had a facebook account, surely the same logic should apply..unless of course there is something else going on.
Yes the video is vile, I've personally only watched about 20 seconds of it to confirm it was authentic but following peoples reports on this thread and other commentators I trust I know it isn't something I could handle. BUT it is real, it happened. What makes it different from video of kids dying from chemical attacks in syria, or the twin tower attacks, the last Melbourne terrorist attack or thousands of other similar videos floating around the internet many attached to mainstream news outlets which are prioritised on youtube searches? Is it because these outlets are getting their cut of the money so that makes certain gore ok if 'good' people are profiting off of peoples fascination with the macarbre?
I'm definitely not saying outlets should be pushing it out there but I definitely don't see how rounding up a hate-mob and potentially ruining a kids life is going to do any good for society
-
@Rembrandt said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:
I actually thought this zerohedge article that flicked by my feed yesterday was most like BS. But now seeing this charge clearly its true, if you can't read it you are probably in NZ where certain ISP's have now banned the domain.
Apparently the site blocking is mostly on mobile providers
Some people have reported kiwifarms and the chans being down. They were ok for me when I tested. Zerohedge was blocked on a couple of mobile providers but not on my home networks ISP
Skimming through the stories I'm not sure why zerohedge was partially blocked. There was nothing unusual in the NZ stories.. maybe there was something bad in the comments under articles?
(the site is just a boomer right wing news site a bit like Breitbart)Whatever blocking they are doing seems half arsed
Christchurch Gunman in Mosque