Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shootings at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    He was a self described eco-fascist. When Leftwing environmentalism and anti-gun ideology collide with racism in the mind of an evil man. Sadly, he will not be the last. He has at least as much akin to James Hogdskinson as he does Brevik.

    Comment


    • #32
      This eco-facist environmental racism thing was new to me. The world just keeps getting stranger by the day.
      The New Zealand investigation into this matter should clear things up further.
      cheers

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kuku View Post
        Yes, may the place stay as peaceful as i imagine. For all the nice and kind people i met there all those 19 years ago.

        Afghans are a brave lot, have seen that personally, there are a lot of them now in Delhi.

        The world has changed though, no one can deny that.
        They're still peaceful, nice & kind

        Hundreds form human chain around mosque in New Zealand | The Hill | Mar 22 2019

        What an awesome gesture : )

        Keep in mind the population numbers of NZ. Hundreds in Wellington (pop.200k only) translates into orders of magnitude elsewhere.

        UAE projects NZ PM's image on Burj Khalifa, thanks her for 'sincere empathy' towards Muslims


        Fantastic PM
        Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Mar 19,, 13:05.

        Comment


        • #34
          I don't see this attack as rascist, i see this as an attack on NZ specifically its policy of non-discrimination towards immigrants. Kiwi PM realised this right off the bat.

          Listen to Justin..



          Kiwi PM would give the same answer.

          You start discriminating then where does it stop. Its a slippery slope.

          Comment


          • #35
            The above video of Justine, If i take that line in India at a political gathering, i will be beaten black and blue and probably thrown in the lock up for a couple of days.
            I also remember watching the prime minister in Netherlands just walking around.

            Its a beautiful thing the western civilization has created.
            cheers

            Comment


            • #36
              You wouldn't have to say that in India as we've been doing this multi-culti thing for centuries. But it's a new thing in the west. The mughals aren't seen as invaders to the same extent as the Brits as they integrated into society. The Brits didn't and left after a bit.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                I don't see this attack as rascist,
                It absolutely was racist. The shooter hated browns who he saw as overly fecund and polluting the earth using up its resources. He saw only Europeans as able to limit their own fecundity and not overwhelm the natural environment. He of course completely ignored that NZ, AU, US, Canada, SA were all built on the principal of pushing indigenous peoples off the land to open it up for exploitation by whites. Just be glad your ancestors were too fecund and the colonial British couldn't do it to you too. The shooter put a left wing twist on an age old problem; racist hate. He draped it in environmentalism but left or right thinking skin color is a virtue is what lead him down the path of evil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Why attack muslims ? Islam isn't a race.

                  He thinks muslims are pre-dominantly non-whites. Who let them in ? the state.

                  Kiwi PM referred to the attack as a terrorist act. Not a hate crime.

                  This was a surprise as the 'hate crime' term is popular in the west. Terrorism in the west is mostly muslims doing the killing.

                  Terrorists attack the state.

                  This attack is on the state of NZ for its policies.

                  Brevik didn't kill any muslims, he targeted his own for what he considered as treason.

                  I'm using Brevik's attack here to inform as to motivation

                  Both Brevik & Brenton are in the same category.

                  What was the Norwegian state's respponse ? to continue as is and i think the same will hold for NZ too (minus guns now).
                  Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Mar 19,, 14:52.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    Why attack muslims ?
                    Because he sees it as an invasive pest.

                    Islam isn't a race.
                    Most Moslems are not white

                    He thinks muslims are pre-dominantly non-whites. Who let them in ? the state.
                    Same people who let him in...

                    Kiwi PM referred to the attack as a terrorist act. Not a hate crime.
                    It was politically motivated violence that makes it terrorism.

                    This was a surprise as the 'hate crime' term is popular in the west. Terrorism in the west is mostly muslims doing the killing.
                    Hate crimes are aimed at a group for group membership. Terrorism is political violence. All hates crimes are terrorism, but not all terrorism is a hate crime.

                    Terrorists attack the state.

                    This attack is on the state of NZ for its policies.
                    Terrorist attack the political legitimacy of the state by undermining faith in a secure society

                    Brevik didn't kill any muslims, he targeted his own for what he considered as treason.

                    I'm using Brevik's attack here to inform as to motivation

                    Both Brevik & Brenton are in the same category.

                    What was the Norwegian state's respponse ? to continue as is and i think the same will hold for NZ too (minus guns now).
                    Probably

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      It was politically motivated violence that makes it terrorism.
                      That's the point i'm trying to make.

                      That this was more politically motivated as opposed to racially.

                      Race crimes don't serve the purpose. People that are in are already in. Though as mentioned in the earlier video if the immigrants young are targeted then it encourages the family to move out. A school that had mostly immigrant kids is a target.

                      The main idea is to stop more from entering and for that you have to target the policy that lets them in.

                      So this is using violence to overcome the democratic process.

                      Terrorist attack the political legitimacy of the state by undermining faith in a secure society
                      Right

                      Hate crimes are aimed at a group for group membership. Terrorism is political violence. All hates crimes are terrorism, but not all terrorism is a hate crime.
                      So was this attack in NZ a hate crime or not, according to you ?

                      The term is so broad that it can be applied to a lot of things and becomes less informing as a result

                      You can argue that hate is the motivation but the goal is a soft group cleansing through coercing the state as well as immigrants already in the state.

                      I find it easier to use the word race when it targets particular race communities, jews say. Clearly defined. As pointed out in an earlier post there was nothing against jews in the perps paraphernalia.

                      Things get a bit nebulous when muslims are being targeted as that group includes several races.

                      Anti-muslim is more precise than race attack.
                      Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Mar 19,, 15:17.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                        You wouldn't have to say that in India as we've been doing this multi-culti thing for centuries. But it's a new thing in the west. The mughals aren't seen as invaders to the same extent as the Brits as they integrated into society. The Brits didn't and left after a bit.
                        Thats because the only Brits in India were Elites or military..hardly a pool of working class immigration....

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          You wouldn't have to say that in India as we've been doing this multi-culti thing for centuries. But it's a new thing in the west. The mughals aren't seen as invaders to the same extent as the Brits as they integrated into society. The Brits didn't and left after a bit.
                          The area i am from has no multi cultural thing going on, its a single religion society divided on tribe and caste.
                          But what i was referring to was that if one does find oneself in a political gathering, there are big problems if you take an aggressive tone there are musclemen who threaten you, or even end up beating you.
                          for some decades now the norm in India has been that the person in power must be respected as he/she is divine, there was no question of questioning their authority.

                          I was shocked to see the access to the people in power in my travels across Europe, a precious achievement they must preserve.

                          Things seem to be changing though, in recent coverage of political gatherings in the USA violence against opposing voices seems to be the norm. Dont know anything about the US political history though to state if its a new thing or has always been there.
                          cheers

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            You wouldn't have to say that in India as we've been doing this multi-culti thing for centuries. But it's a new thing in the west. The mughals aren't seen as invaders to the same extent as the Brits as they integrated into society. The Brits didn't and left after a bit.
                            It isn't a 'new thing' in the west, it just got sidelined by the growth of a particular sort of nationalist/bureacratic construct. Look at any European nation that isn't Iceland or some micro state and you will see multicultural populations who existed as such for centuries in one form or another. Many have similar stories of absorbing their conquerers into their own cultures.

                            What has hidden that to a considerable extent is the rise of the modern bureaucratic nation state. When Europe was all monarchies or empires national identity was somewhere between less important and actively threatening to the rulers of the nation/empire. That doesn't mean people didn't have an idea of themselves as English or French or Spanish etc., but that others in the same nation might also think of themselves as Cornish or Breton or Catalan without necessarily being in conflict. They could speak their own language and maintain theor own culture as long as they pledged fealty to the head of state. Some national identities, such as German, transcended borders and competed with identities such as Prussian, Bavarian etc.

                            The construct ushered in by the French revolution saw an attempt to create centralised bureaucratic structures bound by common languages and cultures. Local languages were pushed out as education became a state function. Local customs succumbed to national legal systems. Local autonomy was usurped by increasingly strong central governments. Empires such as Austria Hungary, the Ottomans & Russia eventually shed many of their minority groups, who in turn formed smaller but still multicultural nations.

                            Have a look at France, for example. There are gaelic speaking Bretons. Basques on the Atlantic border with Spain and Catalans on the Med border. Stretching from the Atlantic into Italy along the Spanish border and the Med are the occitan dialects. There are even more such dialects if you run up the Swiss border to the German border and on to the sea. Over time the growth of the power of Paris based governments rolled over those differences until only the stubborn and the elderly kept the old tongues & languages alive. That process has been challenged in the past generation or so, but from a position where a centralised concept of France still dominates. In other nations such as Italy attempts to override local languages & cultures has been less successful.

                            The tension between national and local identities has long existed in European societies, as it does now in India.
                            Last edited by Bigfella; 05 Apr 19,, 12:35.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              The construct ushered in by the French revolution saw an attempt to create centralised bureaucratic structures bound by common languages and cultures. Local languages were pushed out as education became a state function. Local customs succumbed to national legal systems. Local autonomy was usurped by increasingly strong central governments. Empires such as Austria Hungary, the Ottomans & Russia eventually shed many of their minority groups, who in turn formed smaller but still multicultural nations.

                              Have a look at France, for example. There are gaelic speaking Bretons. Basques on the Atlantic border with Spain and Catalans on the Med border. Stretching from the Atlantic into Italy along the Spanish border and the Med are the occitan dialects. There are even more such dialects if you run up the Swiss border to the German border and on to the sea. Over time the growth of the power of Paris based governments rolled over those differences until only the stubborn and the elderly kept the old tongues & languages alive. That process has been challenged in the past generation or so, but from a position where a centralised concept of France still dominates. In other nations such as Italy attempts to override local languages & cultures has been less successful.
                              The way i understand what happened in France was Napoleon wanted soldiers that could understand orders. So the various dialects had to go if they were to be effective on the battlefield.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                The way i understand what happened in France was Napoleon wanted soldiers that could understand orders. So the various dialects had to go if they were to be effective on the battlefield.
                                I haven't heard that story, but it isn't closely connected to the phenomenon I'm describing. Napoleon sold himself more as a moderniser and implementer of the ideals of the revolution.

                                The rise of the modern nation state was more to do with the decline in legitimacy of European monarchies and empires. The French Revolution and the spread of its ideals during the Napoleonic Wars accelerated that process. As power began to shift from a tiny handful of hereditary or 'ordained' national & local leaders to a wider constituency national identities based on artificially 'unified' concepts of national character became the new organising principle. Whether those identities were imposed from above on large nations or bubbled up from below to create smaller ones they ultimately rode roughshod over the internal differences every nation possessed.
                                sigpic

                                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X