Christchurch Massacre

[Spike]

6 hours ago, Inverted said:

Lol the centre and the right wing control the entire media, at least the traditional media. 

I think I must be missing these left wing media figures you have in mind, any suggestions?

The centre and right companies you alude also control left wing media. Their goal is to sell a product and occasionally using astro-turfing to influence opinions. Happens back home at least. A Murdoch controlled entity The Project on Channel 10 will spout anti-Liberal (right) and pro-Labour (labour) diatribe all year until elections and then surprise people with ‘actually in this election the liberal party is the better choice’. They build up their lefty audience and manipulate them into voting right.

News is mind control.

 

[Inverted]

16 minutes ago, Spike said:

The centre and right companies you alude also control left wing media. Their goal is to sell a product and occasionally using astro-turfing to influence opinions. Happens back home at least. A Murdoch controlled entity The Project on Channel 10 will spout anti-Liberal (right) and pro-Labour (labour) diatribe all year until elections and then surprise people with ‘actually in this election the liberal party is the better choice’. They build up their lefty audience and manipulate them into voting right.

News is mind control.

 

I have no idea about the policies of the Australian Labour, party, but considering that social-democrat parties in most countries have drifted towards the centre, it doesn't tell me much that there is a pro-Labour voice in Australia. 

The media frames the range of acceptable discourse, and for example in Britain and America, if the left-of-centre party starts to drift too far from the centre, any potentially sympathetic media will turn on them. If the right-wing party drifts further right, the media will generally defend it and attempt to normalise the new range of political positions on the right. 

The BBC for example did a feature giving a new youth group - anti-Islam white nationalists with a tiny membership - a free chance to air their views on the evening after the attack yesterday. Their idea of "impartiality" means giving a free voice to any right-wing voice out there, regardless of their size or the danger they pose. 

 

[6666]

I really don't see how it's even a discussion about if the right wing of left wing contribute to violent extremism more... ultra conservatism and feelings of being the only identity worth anything both fall under the far right for the most part and it gets encouraged by people that preach in the name of the far right. And yes that includes Muslim extremists as well as white supremacists and Christian extremists and nationalist extremism, etc.

This obviously doesn't mean that all conservatives go that far or are unreasonable but people with a far right mentality are very much an issue and they're very easy to find.

[Inverted]

Btw here's how a left of centre British tabloid is reporting things, since we want to see how unfairly everyone treats the right wing apparently.

[The Artful Dodger]

Yes, Islamism is a religious Fascism. It's amazing there are so many apologists on the left nowadays, but the left doesn't really exist anymore, sadly.

[Harry]

The Australian senator who made those remarks on Friday was yesterday egged by a 17 year old who he then punched in the face. 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10908650

[Spike]

Honestly though, what upsets and enrages me so much is how politicians and whomever use tragedies like this as arguments for or against their political motives.

It is disrespectful and sickening. 

[IgnisExcubitor]

15 hours ago, Inverted said:

Btw here's how a left of centre British tabloid is reporting things, since we want to see how unfairly everyone treats the right wing apparently.

 

And this is what UK's Independent wrote about the Pulwama terrorist (who massacred 49) trying to humanise him. On the video, before the attack the terrorist explicitly stated that he wanted to kill Hindus(used a derogatory term) and establish Ghazwa-e-Hind (google that). 

 

Media in India is overwhelmingly left and in some cases hard-left and vocal about it, and this is how they tried to humanise Burhan Wani another terrorist. 

And a reputed national paper even used a picture of his funeral as their twitter background photo, before taking it down after public outrage. 

 

My point is, papers or journalists depending their ideological leaning (Naxals are even romanticised- writers like Arundhati Roy called them Gandhians with Guns) OR just to get hits from people will try to do this. And it happens with all 'kinds' of terrorists. 

 

Media will also stir the pot by either vilifying a community or making excuses for people picking up arms or their kind of extremists. 

[Azeem]

Two very different cases 

One is in a region under occupation (according to UN) in an armed conflict and on military personnel the other the clearly opposite.

Its like comparing this incident to someone getting killed in the Israel-Palestine conflict or the war going on between Houthis and Saudis   

[Azeem]

One of my Uni senior died in the attack

[IgnisExcubitor]

Let's not apply Imran Khan's terrorism policy here now, @Azeem, about good terrorist and bad terrorist (or acts that are understandable as a reaction to a conflict- which is what you're doing). Your theory could also be applied to the Christchurch terrorist who believed that he was in a conflict (he stated that in his manifesto). But that shouldn't be the issue. 

A terrorist is a terrorist. It's about a terrorist committing an act of terror. And by his own admission on the video, the Pulwama terrorist wanted to kill Hindus and establish Ghazwa-e-Hind. But even if he hadn't mentioned that, his act was unacceptable.

Your post is no different than the people trying to blame multiculturalism for Christchurch. Let's not find or make excuses for horrible people to suit our narratives, please. 

[Azeem]

37 minutes ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

Let's not apply Imran Khan's terrorism policy here now, @Azeem, about good terrorist and bad terrorist (or acts that are understandable as a reaction to a conflict- which is what you're doing). Your theory could also be applied to the Christchurch terrorist who believed that he was in a conflict (he stated that in his manifesto). But that shouldn't be the issue. 

A terrorist is a terrorist. It's about a terrorist committing an act of terror. And by his own admission on the video, the Pulwama terrorist wanted to kill Hindus and establish Ghazwa-e-Hind. But even if he hadn't mentioned that, his act was unacceptable.

Your post is no different than the people trying to blame multiculturalism for Christchurch. Let's not find or make excuses for horrible people to suit our narratives, please. 

You are confusing two things. 

The guy who did Christchurch attack believed he was in a conflict because ? ISIS and Islamist are killing his people which is absolutely correct if he had attacked on ISIS and or another armed group than it wouldn't make sense to call him a terrorist ? . But its about killing civilians

Anyone who is engaged in an armed conflict in a known conflicted region against another armed group whether a state are not terrorists. This applies to Kashmir our Baolochistan, Iran's Balochstan, Spain's Basque region  Kurds vs Turkey etc but nationalism makes that difficult to understand.

And regarding Ghazwa e Hind things like these exist everywhere around the world in some social circles. Akhand Bharat in India, reviving Arab Calipahte aka Pan- Arabism, Greater Iran( the reason why Arab and Persians don't get along) Greater Israel even some social circles in Japan a country liked by everyone have a deep superiority complex and want to revive the Imperial Japan lots of Jewish teenagers attack Churchs and Mosques in Israel claiming all false Gods shall perish (quoting from Torah) but anyone can tell that political conflicts fuel these ideas and they are more a way to justify ones frustration.    

[Azeem]

As already been said we are living in one of the most peaceful times of history.

If we start digging up history without any bias than a lot people glorified in today's world would be declared terrorists by today's standards.

We want to kill X is just the reminder of human history    

[The Artful Dodger]

Hell is other people. 

[IgnisExcubitor]

@Azeem still a big nope. Cause it's not just the armed forces that are being targeted. Regular people are also killed in Kashmir on a regular basis (and other states) by these very same terrorists simply for not towing the line or even wanting to work, study, etc. 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits weren't armed forces and were raped, murdered and pushed out that region and their homes, simply for being different. They were civilians, all of them.

Even when the terrorist explicitly states his reasons, you choose to ignore them. That's fine by me. 

[Azeem]

16 minutes ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

@Azeem still a big nope. Cause it's not just the armed forces that are being targeted. Regular people are also killed in Kashmir on a regular basis (and other states) by these very same terrorists simply for not towing the line or even wanting to work, study, etc. 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits weren't armed forces and were raped, murdered and pushed out that region and homes, simply for being different. They were civilians, all of them.

Even when the terrorist explicitly states his reasons, you choose to ignore them. That's fine by me. 

And that includes on both sides right ? 

A Kurdish man killed a Turkish student in Poland few days ago shouting " All Turks must die " few days ago google it. Would you or your government would totally side with Turkey or have a soft spot for Turkey in this conflict because there are Kurdish elements which explicity state their reasons which are exactly the same as the ones with Ghazwa e Hind ? because i remember you saying Turkey is like Europe's Pakistan.    

[IgnisExcubitor]

@Azeem

A] I have never ever stated here or any other place that Turkey is the Pakistan of Europe. I hardly know anything about Turkey. 

I do admit to regularly stating that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism with it being involved in pretty much every terrorist attack. 

Dude, don't throw any lies. I have never said Turkey is the Pakistan of Europe. 

B] I don't know about this incident, but I firmly believe that the Kurdish man is a terrorist cause he was looking to kill a specific group of people. 

C] The people whom you refuse to call terrorist are killing civilians beyond armed forces — Pandits as in Hindus and even Muslims. You are trying to justify/condone etc one kind of murders because you see it as conflict. I don't. Simples. 

[Azeem]

1 minute ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

@Azeem

A] I have never ever stated here or any other place that Turkey is the Pakistan of Europe. I hardly know anything about Turkey. 

I do admit to regularly stating that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism with it being involved in pretty much every terrorist attack. 

Dude, don't throw any lies. I have never said Turkey is the Pakistan of Europe. 

B] I don't know about this incident, but I firmly believe that the Kurdish man is a terrorist cause he was looking to kill a specific group of people. 

C] The people whom you refuse to call terrorist are killing civilians beyond armed forces — Pandits as in Hindus and even Muslims. You are trying to justify/condone etc one kind of murders because you see it as conflict. I don't. Simples. 

A You have on the old forum 

B Not about the man, do you believe India should fully support Turkey in their conflict with Kurds because Kurdish elements openly have said they want to kill all X. If yes than India has never done that instead uses Turkish-Kurdish conflict to justify the Indian policies in Kashmir   

 

[IgnisExcubitor]

Again nope. I haven't said that. Not here and not on the old forums. I know bollocks about Turkish politics to open my mouth on it.

And secondly, it doesn't matter what the establishment/government does. Your establishment (Army and ISI) wants to burn our entire country down and hence explicitly breeds and nurtures terrorists for that. But I am pretty certain you won't support that, even if you are finding it hard to call some of them as terrorist. 

I wont support that Kurdish man and for me he is a terrorist, because he is targeting a specific group. It's really very simple, @Azeem.

 

[Azeem]

Should have taken a screen shot 

[RandoEFC+]

Read through this and a lot of good points made so far. 

The main thing that jumps out to me is that this thread is that it's a microcosm of the effect terrorism has on the majority of society. People pointing the finger at a hundred different places when it should only be pointed at the perpetrator, the result: polarisation.

Racist Australians this, bigot that, far left this, far right that.

Makes you wonder how much of the trend towards polarisation in the West is to do with the long term effects of events like these and all of the other religiously motivated genocide and terrorist attacks. In the absence of a visible enemy right in front of them people direct the hate inspired by these events at something else they don't like. 

It's concerning. The West has become a very angry place that's turning against itself which is exactly what the perpetrators of attacks like these have been aiming to achieve.

[Dr. Gonzo]

38 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Read through this and a lot of good points made so far. 

The main thing that jumps out to me is that this thread is that it's a microcosm of the effect terrorism has on the majority of society. People pointing the finger at a hundred different places when it should only be pointed at the perpetrator, the result: polarisation.

Racist Australians this, bigot that, far left this, far right that.

Makes you wonder how much of the trend towards polarisation in the West is to do with the long term effects of events like these and all of the other religiously motivated genocide and terrorist attacks. In the absence of a visible enemy right in front of them people direct the hate inspired by these events at something else they don't like. 

It's concerning. The West has become a very angry place that's turning against itself which is exactly what the perpetrators of attacks like these have been aiming to achieve.

That’s literally the goal of ISIS. To push us into a holy war, and us being the entire western world.

Religious fundamentalists in America (so probably all over the west, just more privately in less religious countries) also want the same thing.

These idiots all think a holy war in the Middle East is needed for the apocalypse to come. So they want a big destructive war that basically ends humanity.

These people are dangerous lunatics all cut from the same cloth.

[Azeem]

The fifth suspect of Christchurch shootings has defected to Israel

A suspect confronted the court, two other under investigation; reports about another suspect who left for Israel faces the silence of authorities.

https://intellectualobserver.com/the-fifth-suspect-of-christchurch-shootings-has-defected-to-israel/

[Inverted]

21 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Read through this and a lot of good points made so far. 

The main thing that jumps out to me is that this thread is that it's a microcosm of the effect terrorism has on the majority of society. People pointing the finger at a hundred different places when it should only be pointed at the perpetrator, the result: polarisation.

Racist Australians this, bigot that, far left this, far right that.

Makes you wonder how much of the trend towards polarisation in the West is to do with the long term effects of events like these and all of the other religiously motivated genocide and terrorist attacks. In the absence of a visible enemy right in front of them people direct the hate inspired by these events at something else they don't like. 

It's concerning. The West has become a very angry place that's turning against itself which is exactly what the perpetrators of attacks like these have been aiming to achieve.

Islamic terrorists and White nationalist terrorists have the exact same goal - to create a narrative of muslim communities being basically incompatible with western society and of posing them as an existential threat to each other. Islamic fundamentalists pose the Crusader narrative of the West trying to destroy the Muslim world, and the white nationalists pose the great replacement narrative about birthrates and muslim immigration.

That's why it's important to identify and tackle the voices in the West that subscribe to that worldview - both from the Islamic fundamentalist side, and the "Western" side.Very few terrorists have original ideas - you can't make something from nothing. That's why we have laws against incitement, laws against harassment, laws against defamation, against perjury, against hate speech, against electoral fraud.

Because the fact that some people can screen out terrorist incitement doesn't mean it isn't dangerous to spread it.  Same way where some people having good immune systems doesn't mean we don't have food standards.

A person who accuses Muslims of being secret jihadis, and saying that France will be majority muslim by 2020 or whatever, is functionally the same as an Islamic hate preacher. They're just pushing the same shit with a different brand name 

They might be white, have a good education, and write in a major newspaper. They might be an American academic with best-selling books, but the practical impact of what they say is the same.  And it's time we wisened up to it.

Of course the individual is where the chain of causation ends, but no major problem has ever been solved by washing our hands of it and saying it's all just individuals. 

[Azeem]

22 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Islamic terrorists and White nationalist terrorists have the exact same goal - to create a narrative of muslim communities being basically incompatible with western society and of posing them as an existential threat to each other. Islamic fundamentalists pose the Crusader narrative of the West trying to destroy the Muslim world, and the white nationalists pose the great replacement narrative about birthrates and muslim immigration.

That's why it's important to identify and tackle the voices in the West that subscribe to that worldview - both from the Islamic fundamentalist side, and the "Western" side.Very few terrorists have original ideas - you can't make something from nothing. That's why we have laws against incitement, laws against harassment, laws against defamation, against perjury, against hate speech, against electoral fraud.

Because the fact that some people can screen out terrorist incitement doesn't mean it isn't dangerous to spread it.  Same way where some people having good immune systems doesn't mean we don't have food standards.

A person who accuses Muslims of being secret jihadis, and of saying that France will be majority muslim by 2020 or whatever, is functionally the same as an Islamic hate preacher. They're just pushing the same shit with a different brand name 

They might be white, have a good education, and write in a major newspaper. They might be an American academic with best-selling books, but the practical impact of what they say is the same.  And it's time we wisened up to it.

Of course the individual is where the chain of causation ends, but no major problem has ever been solved by washing our hands of it and saying it's all just individuals. 

You would be surprised that its a common belief among ' educated ' people anywhere Muslims form a sizable minority. That they will change the demographs etc  and its not just hate preachers its backed by the media and to some extent by states as well.