Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[Stout]

Just suppose you took your 8 year old daughter to that public spectacle in Hagley Park and she asks you " Why are all the women at the back of the audience how come they can't sit up front with the men ? Why can't they sit together as a family ?

How would you answer that without any sort of "othering" and if, she responded in a quizzical fashion, might she be considered a racist ?

 

[ServiceSoon]

You are comparing the wearing of a hajib to waving the Rebel Rag???


Words just fail me as to how wrong that is.


Just like a lot of the right wing garbage spouted here.

Would you agree that the hajib and Rebel Flag are both symbols? Would you also agree that each item symbolizes something different to each individual? Knowing that both symbols offend some and not others, how can you support the use of one symbol and not another?

Neither symbol offends me. For that reason I am impartial. Using a foundational principle allows me to evaluate it in the most fair and just way. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to ignore a principled evaluation method and evaluate each situation in a vacuum or based on your personal contrived merit, don't you expose yourself to the folly of confirmation bias?

 

[Stout]

Oh bliss, bliss and heaven

A white supremacist cancelled.

Christchurch, Auckland venues cancel Philip Anselmo gigs over 'white power' remarks

Any special passages you think I should have read out loud, just let me know, I don't want to be "disingenuous" again.

I;m surprised they were going to let this guy itno the country in the first place.

 

[smartcooky]

Amazing how we've had 50 people killed because they were Muslims yet we need to discuss in this thread how terrible Islam is. You'd almost think some people supported the killing of the Muslims or that because other Muslims are bad we shouldn't be condemning these killings....

Oh, I am sure that there are certain members of this forum who are nothing short of direct supporters of the Mosque shooter, and are giving him a metaphorical slap on the back and a job well done. They mostly hide their covert support behind concerns for free speech.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh bliss, bliss and heaven

A white supremacist cancelled.

Christchurch, Auckland venues cancel Philip Anselmo gigs over 'white power' remarks

Any special passages you think I should have read out loud, just let me know, I don't want to be "disingenuous" again.

Good!

Anselmo was filmed ending a concert in 2016 by giving a Nazi salute and shouting "white power" and has made multiple public remarks about white supremacy.

I'm surprised they were going to let this guy itno the country in the first place.

So am I

 

[The Atheist]

I have a question that might be answered here. The attack came up for a brief discussion with a a guy I know; he claimed that one of the mosques that was attacked was the source of some ISIS soldiers in the past. I reminded him that it was an immigrant that conducted the attack and there is no evidence that he killed any ISIS soldiers or sympathizers. As far as I know some of the people he killed were born in NZ.

Did I get anything wrong?

As far as I'm aware, the only Kiwi to have joined ISIS is this Mark Taylor, a bloke so intensely stupid he gave away an ISIS position by forgetting to turn off his location on his phone whilst posting to Twitter. If you check that out, there are a number of parallels between Taylor and Tarrant: a loner loser who can't get laid being top of the list.

Some of the victims were indeed NZ born, so it looks like you were right on the money.
____________________________

Meanwhile, the over-reaction has begin, with Wellington street concert being partly evacuated because someone had a tattoo that looked a bit white supremacy. (but wasn't)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/111507831/wellingtons-homegrown-festival-reportedly-evacuated

 

[smartcooky]

It’s just dispiriting to see how quickly a ‘skeptical’ forum abandons the principle of free inquiry and debate in favor of feelings and censorship.

At some point, the people have to say that enough is enough.

After Columbine, the US Government did nothing
After Virginia Tech, the US Government did nothing
After Sandy Hook, the US Government did nothing
After Orlando, the US Government did nothing
After Margery Stoneman-Douglas, the US Government did nothing
After Las Vegas, the US Government did nothing
After Christchurch, the New Zealand government has acted swiftly and surely.

We have drawn a line under this, and will do whatever it takes to prevent this happening again in this country, and if that means a few people's rights are going to have to be restricted, then so . be . it!

Free speech is really important.
Being able to live life safe from the actions of extremists at both ends of the hate spectrum is more important.
Free speech is not a lot of use to dead people!

 

[smartcooky]

I have a question that might be answered here. The attack came up for a brief discussion with a a guy I know; he claimed that one of the mosques that was attacked was the source of some ISIS soldiers in the past.

This is absolutely untrue. As The Atheist pointed out, the only NZer to join ISIS was Mark Taylor.

https://montrealgazette.com/pmn/new...home/wcm/64d7a452-49c3-4c7e-9bcf-3aab225f2c0a

He was radicalized by following Anwar al-Awlaki, a now deceased US-born al-Qaida preacher.

In 2015, New Zealand mosque elder Mustafa Farouk told The Associated Press that when Taylor arrived in Hamilton, they allowed him to park the old truck he lived in near the mosque and offered to find him accommodation and mental-health services. But he said Taylor wanted to remain independent and declined their offers.

If Taylor had radical thoughts, Farouk said, he kept them to himself.

I reminded him that it was an immigrant that conducted the attack and there is no evidence that he killed any ISIS soldiers or sympathizers. As far as I know some of the people he killed were born in NZ.

Did I get anything wrong?

Nope, you got it right!

 

[Steve]

Oh, I am sure that there are certain members of this forum who are nothing short of direct supporters of the Mosque shooter, and are giving him a metaphorical slap on the back and a job well done. They mostly hide their covert support behind concerns for free speech.

Oooh, accusation by insinuation. Very impressive. As a defender of free speech it occurs to me that you may be including me in your insinuation. So, for the record:

Muslims are as entitled to life, liberty, freedom, happiness, etc as the rest of the occupants of this planet.
I think the NZ mosque shooter is a complete prick.
He is a coward.
His actions were completely and totally wrong.
I sincerely hope that he spends the rest of his life in prison and isolated from the general prison population.
If he does get into the general population I would not be upset if something unpleasant happened to him.
The people who were shot, their surviving relatives, and the people of NZ as a whole have my complete and utter sympathy.
The world would be a much better place if this type of incident never happens again. I sincerely hope it does not.

With all that said I do not think that the suppression of information related to this event that is happening in NZ is a reasonable or rational reaction. I do not this think it will have a positive effect on lessening the remote chance of this type of event occurring in the future. It is primarily an example of "preaching to the converted". The vast majority of those who agree with the restrictions would never have viewed the info in the first place. And those that really want to view it will gain access anyway.

The positive actions related to gun restrictions will be much more effective.

 

[Samson]

"After the attacks, experts and journalists have sought to analyse the gunman's views, to place them in the context of history."

We are fortunate to have experts and journalists to do this important work on our behalf I guess.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12215540

 

[smartcooky]

Oooh, accusation by insinuation.

Very impressive. As a defender of free speech it occurs to me that you may be including me in your insinuation.

You're not one of them... they know who they are!

So, for the record:

Muslims are as entitled to life, liberty, freedom, happiness, etc as the rest of the occupants of this planet.
I think the NZ mosque shooter is a complete prick.
He is a coward.
His actions were completely and totally wrong.
I sincerely hope that he spends the rest of his life in prison and isolated from the general prison population.
If he does get into the general population I would not be upset if something unpleasant happened to him.
The people who were shot, their surviving relatives, and the people of NZ as a whole have my complete and utter sympathy.
The world would be a much better place if this type of incident never happens again. I sincerely hope it does not.

I agree

With all that said I do not think that the suppression of information related to this event that is happening in NZ is a reasonable or rational reaction. I do not this think it will have a positive effect on lessening the remote chance of this type of event occurring in the future. It is primarily an example of "preaching to the converted". The vast majority of those who agree with the restrictions would never have viewed the info in the first place. And those that really want to view it will gain access anyway.

I agree, but only to a point

While I agree that anyone who really wants it will find a way to get it, IMO, making it much harder to find necessarily means the number of people who see it and would be affected by it are reduced - if only 100 people are able to view it, there is much less chance of a potential copycat using it as inspiration than if 100,000 or a million view it - its simple arithmetic, a numbers game.

IMO, the argument to not ban this material is a similar argument to the flawed one that gun rights advocates make, that if a step is not a 100% solution to all the problems then do nothing. I vehemently disagree with that view. IMO, if a proposed step fixes 5% of the problems, then its a movement towards a full solution. Another step fixes 4%, and another 6%, and another 3%, and another 5%, and before you know it you're almost 1/4 of the way to a complete solution.

Quite aside from it being very unfair to the victims' families to have a video of their loved ones being brutally and systematically slain, legally allowed for anyone to view, there is also the issue people who are like minded with the shooter, using it to gee up their fellow scumbags, and encouraging them to do the same. Sure, people who are determined to get a copy will do so, you'll never stop those, but that does not mean it should be made easy to do. Making it easy to obtain means it can easily be seen by really young, or unintelligent, easily influenced people; the kind of people who would not necessarily have the skills to find a copy if it was banned.

Making this information harder to get will decrease the chances of someone becoming radicalised - the easier it is to obtain, the more people who get to see it, the more chance there is of the wrong person seeing it and that will lead directly to another similar incident.

Not "preaching to the converted" (as you put it) is all well and good, but there isn't any need for us to aid the converted in their recruitment efforts.

 

[Steve]

You're not one of them... they know who they are!



I agree



I agree, but only to a point

While I agree that anyone who really wants it will find a way to get it, IMO, making it much harder to find necessarily means the number of people who see it and would be affected by it are reduced - if only 100 people are able to view it, there is much less chance of a potential copycat using it as inspiration than if 100,000 or a million view it - its simple arithmetic, a numbers game.

IMO, the argument to not ban this material is a similar argument to the flawed one that gun rights advocates make, that if a step is not a 100% solution to all the problems then do nothing. I vehemently disagree with that view. IMO, if a proposed step fixes 5% of the problems, then its a movement towards a full solution. Another step fixes 4%, and another 6%, and another 3%, and another 5%, and before you know it you're almost 1/4 of the way to a complete solution.

Quite aside from it being very unfair to the victims' families to have a video of their loved ones being brutally and systematically slain, legally allowed for anyone to view, there is also the issue of like minded people using it to gee up their fellow scumbags, and encouraging them to do the same. Sure, people who are determined to get a copy will do so, you'll never stop those, but that does not mean it should be made easy to do. Making it easy to obtain means it can easily be seen by really young, or unintelligent, easily influenced people; the kind of people who would not necessarily have the skills to find a copy if it was banned.

Making this information harder to get will decrease the chances of someone becoming radicalised - the easier it is to obtain, the more people who get to see it, the more chance there is of the wrong person seeing it and that will lead directly to another similar incident.

"Preaching to the converted" (as you put it) is one thing, but there isn't any need for us to aid the converted in their recruitment efforts.

Thanks for this response. We are not going to agree completely but I think we understand each other's view. As with so many things it is a question of degree rather than absolutes. You draw you line in a different location than me and I respect that.

 

[sadhatter]

At some point, the people have to say that enough is enough.

After Columbine, the US Government did nothing
After Virginia Tech, the US Government did nothing
After Sandy Hook, the US Government did nothing
After Orlando, the US Government did nothing
After Margery Stoneman-Douglas, the US Government did nothing
After Las Vegas, the US Government did nothing
After Christchurch, the New Zealand government has acted swiftly and surely.

We have drawn a line under this, and will do whatever it takes to prevent this happening again in this country, and if that means a few people's rights are going to have to be restricted, then so . be . it!

Free speech is really important.
Being able to live life safe from the actions of extremists at both ends of the hate spectrum is more important.
Free speech is not a lot of use to dead people!

Tell that to the people who have died for it.

How long before your point of view can be seen as something worthy of censorship?

To people like you, free speech doesn't mean anything, until it is yours being limited.

Want to prove me wrong? In solidarity with NZ ,don't use the word government going forward.

I guarentee you will not give up a single word, yet you expect others to give up many.

 

[sadhatter]

You're not one of them... they know who they are!



I agree



I agree, but only to a point

While I agree that anyone who really wants it will find a way to get it, IMO, making it much harder to find necessarily means the number of people who see it and would be affected by it are reduced - if only 100 people are able to view it, there is much less chance of a potential copycat using it as inspiration than if 100,000 or a million view it - its simple arithmetic, a numbers game.

IMO, the argument to not ban this material is a similar argument to the flawed one that gun rights advocates make, that if a step is not a 100% solution to all the problems then do nothing. I vehemently disagree with that view. IMO, if a proposed step fixes 5% of the problems, then its a movement towards a full solution. Another step fixes 4%, and another 6%, and another 3%, and another 5%, and before you know it you're almost 1/4 of the way to a complete solution.

Quite aside from it being very unfair to the victims' families to have a video of their loved ones being brutally and systematically slain, legally allowed for anyone to view, there is also the issue people who are like minded with the shooter, using it to gee up their fellow scumbags, and encouraging them to do the same. Sure, people who are determined to get a copy will do so, you'll never stop those, but that does not mean it should be made easy to do. Making it easy to obtain means it can easily be seen by really young, or unintelligent, easily influenced people; the kind of people who would not necessarily have the skills to find a copy if it was banned.

Making this information harder to get will decrease the chances of someone becoming radicalised - the easier it is to obtain, the more people who get to see it, the more chance there is of the wrong person seeing it and that will lead directly to another similar incident.

Not "preaching to the converted" (as you put it) is all well and good, but there isn't any need for us to aid the converted in their recruitment efforts.

I would take up arms against this view, and support people doing so against any government that attempted to enforce it.

Once people in power try to control the flow of information to such an extent ,they need to go.

 

[smartcooky]

Tell that to the people who have died for it.

How long before your point of view can be seen as something worthy of censorship?

To people like you, free speech doesn't mean anything, until it is yours being limited.

Want to prove me wrong? In solidarity with NZ ,don't use the word government going forward.

I guarentee you will not give up a single word, yet you expect others to give up many.

I would take up arms against this view, and support people doing so against any government that attempted to enforce it.

Once people in power try to control the flow of information to such an extent ,they need to go.

Oh please spare me your pathetic platitudes. There is actually no such thing as free speech.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try swearing on this forum by subverting the autocensor, or directly insulting another member.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try going down to your local police station and telling the desk sergeant that you are about to go out and kill the first first person you encounter.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try ringing your emergency number, giving your real name, and falsely reporting a crime (be a sport and do it from your home phone)

If you think you have the right to free speech, try wandering into a grade school at morning break and telling everyone that you are a paedophile and you have your eye on a couple of the kids there.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try posting on Facebook, using your real name, exactly how to build a bomb and smuggle it onto an airliner.

What you are allowed to say publicly is already LIMITED. You don't have the absolute right to say or publish absolutely anything you please, without there being consequences for you. These consequences depend on where the line is drawn, by the platform or place where you choose to speak.

All I am doing is drawing my line in a different, slightly more restricted place.

(And there, I didnlt use the G word once)

 

[Giz]

At some point, the people have to say that enough is enough.

After Columbine, the US Government did nothing
After Virginia Tech, the US Government did nothing
After Sandy Hook, the US Government did nothing
After Orlando, the US Government did nothing
After Margery Stoneman-Douglas, the US Government did nothing
After Las Vegas, the US Government did nothing
After Christchurch, the New Zealand government has acted swiftly and surely.

We have drawn a line under this, and will do whatever it takes to prevent this happening again in this country, and if that means a few people's rights are going to have to be restricted, then so . be . it!

Free speech is really important.
Being able to live life safe from the actions of extremists at both ends of the hate spectrum is more important.
Free speech is not a lot of use to dead people!

Self righteous servility

 

[lionking]

Self righteous servility

Regard for the welfare of citizens.

 

[Baylor]

Regard for the welfare of citizens.

By throwing them in prison for expressing the wrong opinion.

 

[lionking]

By throwing them in prison for expressing the wrong opinion.

Why are you so concerned about laws supported by a large proportion of a country you would no doubt consider to be insignificant?

 

[Baylor]

Because complacency of a population and government overreach are things to be concerned about.