New Lynn knife attack
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do. -
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002
Usually when there are major amendments, it would be come the Terror Supression Act 2015 (or whenever) wouldnt it?
Assuming it is still the same act from 2002, an awful lot has changed in our world since then, particularly when it comes to these extremist groups and thier actions, surely if it is still the same act from 2002, it is in need or a serious overhaul?
-
@taniwharugby said in New Lynn knife attack:
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
The Terror Supression Act 2002
Usually when there are major amendments, it would be come the Terror Supression Act 2015 wouldnt it?
Assuming it is still the same act from 2002, an awful lot has changed in our world since then, particularly when it comes to these extremist groups and thier actions, surely if it is still the same act from 2002, it is in need or a serious overhaul?
Still formally 2002: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0034/latest/DLM152702.html
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do.Yes!! 100%, the statement from Jacinda that it doesn't represent any faith is also an idiotic sweeping statement.
Edit - it would also be worth her adding that the majority of Muslims from ME in NZ are here because they were fleeing groups like ISIS, as the biggest victims of Islamic extremism, by a country mile, is Muslims that don't practice Islam "the right way".
It's fine to deal in facts, she doesn't have to treat NZers like idiots. She's either doing that or she's a complete idiot herself.
-
@voodoo said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
In fairness Al Noor Mosque has done this:
-
@nostrildamus said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
To the letter? The original prophet didn't read or write!
From what I've read the Wahhabi is considered extreme by non-Saudi Arabian muslim..https://www.britannica.com/topic/WahhabiHah well yeah that's a turn of phrase. And yes it is, the majority of Mulsims don't follow it, though SA has been trying to export it around the world as much as they can.
-
@voodoo said in New Lynn knife attack:
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
Most feel and know it - but how are they meant to do it? Should the Imam of every single mosque in the country cold call the local newspaper and ask them to write a story about their disgust? At which point, people will presumably come out and accuse Muslims of turning themselves into victims?
I'm a staunch atheist and one of my best friends is a devout Muslim. He's Fijian Indian, has lived in NZ since he was very young, is an avid Warriors and sports fan, and aside from regular mosque visits and prayers, not drinking alcohol and eating halal meat, he lives a not too dissimilar life to me. He's a mechanic by trade, a family man, coaches his kids sports teams etc. When I was a student, his Mum used to invite us round for Eid celebrations and used to send containers of food regularly to our flat, because she wanted to make sure we were well nourished and looked after when living away from home. They were an incredibly warm and generous family.
We spoke on the phone last night and he was devastated - firstly and most obviously for the senseless violence perpetrated under the name of his religion and also because it's gonna be another lightning rod for parts of society to hate Islam as a whole, so he's fearful of what repercussions might come toward mosques and Muslims in the coming days. It's a fallacy to assume that the default is that mosques and the wider Islamic community are hiding or condoning this kind of extremist behaviour.
Does he have to come out on social media and denounce it so that everyone knows he is against it? Or can we just make the logical assumption that as a rational person who is part of the "broader community" he doesn't stand for what the dead terrorist stands for?
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@voodoo said in New Lynn knife attack:
What I hate about this and other attacks is the silence from the broader Muslim community. If he isn't connected to you, or his actions are not condoned by you, then why doesn't every Muslim leader come out and say exactly that, publicly and in the strongest way?
Are they afraid of repercussions? I can understand if they are, but wow if that doesn't highlight the problem.
Most feel and know it - but how are they meant to do it? Should the Imam of every single mosque in the country cold call the local newspaper and ask them to write a story about their disgust? At which point, people will presumably come out and accuse Muslims of turning themselves into victims?
I'm a staunch atheist and one of my best friends is a devout Muslim. He's Fijian Indian, has lived in NZ since he was very young, is an avid Warriors and sports fan, and aside from regular mosque visits and prayers, not drinking alcohol and eating halal meat, he lives a not too dissimilar life to me. He's a mechanic by trade, a family man, coaches his kids sports teams etc. When I was a student, his Mum used to invite us round for Eid celebrations and used to send containers of food regularly to our flat, because she wanted to make sure we were well nourished and looked after when living away from home. They were an incredibly warm and generous family.
We spoke on the phone last night and he was devastated - firstly and most obviously for the senseless violence perpetrated under the name of his religion and also because it's gonna be another lightning rod for parts of society to hate Islam as a whole, so he's fearful of what repercussions might come toward mosques and Muslims in the coming days. It's a fallacy to assume that the default is that mosques and the wider Islamic community are hiding or condoning this kind of extremist behaviour.
Does he have to come out on social media and denounce it so that everyone knows he is against it? Or can we just make the logical assumption that as a rational person who is part of the "broader community" he doesn't stand for what the dead terrorist stands for?
Eloquently written. I don't expect your mate to do anything. I expect the very public leaders of the faith to condemn the attacks in the strongest way. They have a very loud voice when they want it, and they most often choose to stay silent after these attacks. Then wonder why the hate builds?
I am also an atheist, but I have no doubt that if somebody blew up a mosque and claimed it was because of Christianity, then their actions would be condemned pretty quickly by leaders of that faith.
Look I know it's more complicated than I'm giving it credit for. But I don't think it's a big ask to expect more from the leaders of the Muslim world to do their bit
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do.Yes!! 100%, the statement from Jacinda that it doesn't represent any faith is also an idiotic sweeping statement.
Edit - it would also be worth her adding that the majority of Muslims from ME in NZ are here because they were fleeing groups like ISIS, as the biggest victims of Islamic extremism, by a country mile, is Muslims that don't practice Islam "the right way".
It's fine to deal in facts, she doesn't have to treat NZers like idiots. She's either doing that or she's a complete idiot herself.
A little bit of both?
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
-
@booboo said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@majorrage said in New Lynn knife attack:
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
Jacinda saying this guy "doesn't represent any faith" is such a load of shit and just pours petrol on the fire. He follows a version of Islam, sure not the version most Muslims follow but to claim it has nothing to do with it is just fucking bananas. God she's an idiot.
This, this and this fucking again.
God I'm sick of this shit, pandering to crap. This is 100% a fucking faith thing & everybody knows it. Does it mean all of Islam supports this, is capable of this and thus we should be extremely wary of Muslims? Of course it absolutely doesn't. Only idiots think that.
And the idiots that think that aren't going to change their mind because Jacinda says he doesn't represent any faith.
When she says this bullshit, there really should be a journalist in the room taking her to task. It's a straight out lie.
He represents an ideology that is connected to a faith not a faith itself.
But then wearing face coverings is also an ideology connected to a faith. 🤔
What does that even mean? He represents a version of Islam (Wahabbi). It's not "connected" to a faith, it's a carefully considered faith that follows the 7th century teachings of Mohummed to the letter. I don't understand why people in the west are so determined to not understand the ideology these people follow, and instead just dismiss these acts as "just some nutter/lone wolf".
Then say that he represent Wahabbi.
That's how other fundamentalist/interpretive groups are referred to.I'm simply trying to explain why it's important not to make sweeping statements that include innocent people.
It is an ideology that finds a justification within a faith. Just as those that hold extreme christian views do.Yes!! 100%, the statement from Jacinda that it doesn't represent any faith is also an idiotic sweeping statement.
Edit - it would also be worth her adding that the majority of Muslims from ME in NZ are here because they were fleeing groups like ISIS, as the biggest victims of Islamic extremism, by a country mile, is Muslims that don't practice Islam "the right way".
It's fine to deal in facts, she doesn't have to treat NZers like idiots. She's either doing that or she's a complete idiot herself.
A little bit of both?
I have no difficulty believing she's stupid and thinks she's smarter than most New Zealanders.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she was “gutted” the man had been at large despite his known extremism. “What happened today was despicable. It was hateful, it was wrong,” she said. “It was carried out by an individual, not a faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity but an individual person who is gripped by an ideology that is not supported here by anyone in the community.”
"ISIS inspired". What does the first letter in the acronym ISIS literally say?
-
What a massive overreaction.
It definitely wouldn't have happened if they didn't sell knives. It's not like there's a bunch of other stuff that could be used instead or he could have brought his own weapon
-
@anonymous I flippantly said to my brother last night, I bet they take the knives off the shelves. I actually didn’t think they’d do it.
-
@anonymous said in New Lynn knife attack:
What a massive overreaction.
It definitely wouldn't have happened if they didn't sell knives. It's not like there's a bunch of other stuff that could be used instead or he could have brought his own weapon
Rubbish. As a business they are doing the right thing and stopping to think if they really need to be making available weapons that can be used on premise. Always a short term potential for copycat idiots as well.
They haven't decided one way or another. Just stopping and thinking.If there was the slightest inkling that he was carrying a weapon to the store he would have been stopped well beforehand. His whole thing was that he was going to do a knife attack. Maybe he saw them on the shelf on a previous visit and went back realising how easy it would be? Maybe it was a presented opportunity out of the blue?
The likelihood of the attack happening was related directly to the store having a big knife accessible to someone that wanted to make a knife attack. He didn't go there to beat people to death with baked bean cans. -
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@anonymous said in New Lynn knife attack:
What a massive overreaction.
It definitely wouldn't have happened if they didn't sell knives. It's not like there's a bunch of other stuff that could be used instead or he could have brought his own weapon
Rubbish. As a business they are doing the right thing and stopping to think if they really need to be making available weapons that can be used on premise. Always a short term potential for copycat idiots as well.
They haven't decided one way or another. Just stopping and thinking.If there was the slightest inkling that he was carrying a weapon to the store he would have been stopped well beforehand. His whole thing was that he was going to do a knife attack. Maybe he saw them on the shelf on a previous visit and went back realising how easy it would be? Maybe it was a presented opportunity out of the blue?
The likelihood of the attack happening was related directly to the store having a big knife accessible to someone that wanted to make a knife attack. He didn't go there to beat people to death with baked bean cans.That is stupid. Total overreaction. And while we are on the subject I'm sure he could bludgeon someone with a baked bean can. What's next? Bunnings locks up all stock potentially weaponisable?
-
They just need to package the knives in that plastic packaging a lot of toys come in which is almost impossible to open
-
@no-quarter said in New Lynn knife attack:
They just need to package the knives in that plastic packaging a lot of toys come in which is almost impossible to open
Sounds like they should have deported his student visa ass
-
@crucial said in New Lynn knife attack:
@anonymous said in New Lynn knife attack:
What a massive overreaction.
It definitely wouldn't have happened if they didn't sell knives. It's not like there's a bunch of other stuff that could be used instead or he could have brought his own weapon
Rubbish. As a business they are doing the right thing and stopping to think if they really need to be making available weapons that can be used on premise. Always a short term potential for copycat idiots as well.
They haven't decided one way or another. Just stopping and thinking.If there was the slightest inkling that he was carrying a weapon to the store he would have been stopped well beforehand. His whole thing was that he was going to do a knife attack. Maybe he saw them on the shelf on a previous visit and went back realising how easy it would be? Maybe it was a presented opportunity out of the blue?
The likelihood of the attack happening was related directly to the store having a big knife accessible to someone that wanted to make a knife attack. He didn't go there to beat people to death with baked bean cans.So the idea is just to protect people from known terrorists that are under 24/7 surveillance and who only want to attack people with knives? That's probably only 1 or 2 more people than those notorious baked bean can attackers.
Supermarkets will be so much safer now!