It just went down in New Zealand

[ioannis76]

Seriously, since we' re talking about refugees, as you call them, we're talking about war-torn areas. I their countries military conscription applies, therefore any male of combat age who leaves the country is a deserter. Furthermore, and even worse, with the current defeat of ISIS, a great number of ISIS terrorists is coming to Europe. Should we welcome them with open arms, and just wait patiently until they decide it's time for "jihad" again, and see how many children are going to leave their last breath under a truck?
Is that what you're advocating?

...ignition...

You could at least have run a simple google search before making such a smart comment.
I neither coined the term, nor suggested the "solution". Nor did any other "conspiracy theorist", for that matter.

Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

http://www.un.org/en/development/des...-migration.asp

...and we have lift off. Seriously there's fiction and AH boards, take your hallucinations there.

Enlighten me. What do you think will happen once muslims are the majority and thus capable of electing governments. States of "Neutral Religion"? Is there a state with a muslim majority that is like that? Is there a state with a muslim majority in which you would like to live?

No one in their right mind wants to "remove Islam from the West"

No one in their right mind believes that western values are compatible with Islam.

by definition involves ethnic cleansing and genocide.

No it does not. That is of monumental proportions.

Do the women and children who remain in "the West" in your sick plan get sterilised? Or forcibly converted?

Neither. Women don't usually take trucks and run people over in order to terrorise them into submission.
As for forcible conversion, I seriously doubt that any woman who manages to escape the clutches of Islam would willingly remain part of it. Unless you think that islam is a religion for women's rights.
However, considering that we ARE talking about refugees, women and children could remain in safety for the duration of the war. Once this war has ended, they could be given the option of returning or remaining, provided they have not broken any laws (we are not talking about parking violations, of course, but serious crime).

If the men refuse to leave do you cuff them? Shoot them? Bury them in mass graves and hope the Hague doesn't find out?

I think this statement must be in the top ten idiotic things I've read, and I've read lost of idiotic things. If you are illegally occupying a building in your country, if there are squatters, does your police kill the squatters and bury them in mass graves? Or does it merely remove the squatters, in a way that is non life threatening. Unless, of course, you mean that the men of fighting age, would offer resistance, and by resistance we obviously mean ARMED resistance, thus making it impossible for the STATE to remove them. That's a very interesting idea you are suggesting.

That's forceful deportations which is categorized as crimes against humanity.

The top 10 of idiotic statements keeps updating. If you come into a country illegally, by definition you committed a crime. Criminal deportation is NOT prohibited by any law. In fact, the US did it, and is doing it (it was only made harsher):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_deportation
But I would add a clause, if there are good good citizens willing to take said "refugees" into THEIR homes, they can do that. Let's see how many "soft-hearted" (in fact virtue signalling) leftists will come out. I'd bet zero.

[Vanoi]

The top 10 of idiotic statements keeps updating. If you come into a country illegally, by definition you committed a crime. Criminal deportation is NOT prohibited by any law. In fact, the US did it, and is doing it (it was only made harsher):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_deportation
But I would add a clause, if there are good good citizens willing to take said "refugees" into THEIR homes, they can do that. Let's see how many "soft-hearted" (in fact virtue signalling) leftists will come out. I'd bet zero.

Except again you didn't just refer to refugees. You referred to all Muslims in Europe refugees or not. Here is what you said:

You are not going to remove islam from the West by shooting at people in mosques, you are going to remove it by changing policies sealing and I do mean SEALING borders, and sending people BACK to their homelands, unless these people are elderly, women and children (actual children, not 30 year olds who declare themselves to be 15), ie non-combatants. Is that clear?

Removing Islam from Europe would mean deporting more than just refugees. You can stop lying now.

[Principe Alessandro]

Except again you didn't just refer to refugees. You referred to all Muslims in Europe refugees or not. Here is what you said:



Removing Islam from Europe would mean deporting more than just refugees. You can stop lying now.

Immigration is a bad thing also for those people, and is the result of the neocolonial exploitation of their countries. Not only they should return back to their countries but the western powers should just let those countries to build the prosperity their people need. This kind of immigration is fundamentally wrong and is built upon many bad things.



Inviato dal mio TA-1024 utilizzando Tapatalk

[Copperknickers II]

Seriously, since we' re talking about refugees, as you call them, we're talking about war-torn areas. I their countries military conscription applies, therefore any male of combat age who leaves the country is a deserter.

You say 'deserter' as if it's some kind of insult. In what universe is refusing conscription by a tyrannical ruler a bad thing? Imagine WW2 was still on and we had refugees coming from Germany. Who would you have preferred to come into your country: people who joined the Wehrmacht, or conscientious objectors who refused to fight for the Nazis?

Furthermore, and even worse, with the current defeat of ISIS, a great number of ISIS terrorists is coming to Europe. Should we welcome them with open arms, and just wait patiently until they decide it's time for "jihad" again, and see how many children are going to leave their last breath under a truck?
Is that what you're advocating?

If someone committed treason against e.g. the UK, they should return to face trial. Especially since we are the ones paying for them either way, while they're sitting in largely Western-funded refugee camps. I'd personally be in favour of them being imprisoned in Rojava/Kurdistan, if we were able to make such an agreement with the authorities there, simply to avoid radicalisation of British inmates. But they are our responsibility.

Enlighten me. What do you think will happen once muslims are the majority and thus capable of electing governments. States of "Neutral Religion"? Is there a state with a muslim majority that is like that? Is there a state with a muslim majority in which you would like to live?

1. What does that have to do with this thread?
2. Really, what does that have to do with this thread? This thread is about a massacre of innocent Muslim civilians - are you suggesting this was a legitimate


I've about had enough of these tragic threads being hijacked by a debate about the merits and demerits of the Eurabia theory, so I'm going to go and start a thread on it in the Political Academy where such discussions belong. If there are any mods reading this, maybe you could move all these irrelevant Eurabia related posts there, since they really have no place in a thread about a mass shooting.

[Heathen Hammer]

Funny. OK go back ten years and add all up such attacks in Europe and compare that to the mass shooting deaths and spousal murders with guns in the US - I not even going to bother to point out which is vastly higher.

So in that case we also have to include other murders in UK as well. I think you are missing the point entirely.

So I need a gun to protect myself because my country is floating on guns?

I don't see how you came up with that from the text you quoted.

Which recent mass shooting was gang related? Do you have any ideal how many men kill their wives with guns each year? In the US as women you chance of being blow away by a husband or boyfriend or other intimate relationship hovers around 13 -15 times more likely than a stranger murder.

I'm talking about gun crime overall (which is mainly related to homies capping each other over drug turf then anything else and can only be solved by ending "war on drugs" which is a topic for a whole other thread). Mass shootings are not statistically prevalent, they just have a lot of mainstream media exposure.

Single case evidence deserves nothing better than a counter single case. Anyway he did not stop anything the guy was done killing and walking back to his car. He did not return fire and seemed to in his Suicide phase. And he than finished himself off. So no good guy with a gun likely did more or less nothing. But if you want stats post some ten years in the US how many time a good guy with a gun actually shot a criminal vs how many times they shot an innocent person? You do the work. Why not how many time a self protection gun resulted in a kid shooting themselves or somebody else.

My claim isn't anecdotal. Texas shooting had similar conditions with NZ one except for one - there was a good guy with a gun.

[Yayattasa]

Once and for all, do you think attacking a mosque full of innocents is right or wrong?

[ioannis76]

Once and for all, do you think attacking a mosque full of innocents is right or wrong?

How many times do I have to say this? IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. Taking a life is wrong.
Yet in the West it's the odd sicko who conducted the attack, whereas the other side has some well funded organisations, such as the Al Quaeda or ISIS (and probably more). Which means that on one side we have a cult of taking life, which is followed by so many, that it must be looked into.
You have like a handful (if that) of attacks of western fanatics on muslims. But you have a whole bunch of attacks of muslims on westerners.
Even muslims admit this. How many muslims choose to live in western countries, and how many westerners choose to live in muslim countries?
If there had been any significant risk for muslims, do you think they would choose to live in the west?

Apart from that, I can't help but state that the timing of the attack (ie a couple of months before the euroelections) is interesting, to say the least.
Tarrant had visited Turkey, as well, and Erdogan is the only leader who started a dialogue of sorts with him.

[alhoon]

Please avoiding posts that could be interpreted as baiting other posters. These can start a flamewar. It is not against the ToS but it is against the rules of the mudpit. Respect different opinions and avoid flamebait.

[Pinarius]

Erdogan is once again showing his "class":

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been criticised for showing some of the New Zealand mosque gunman's video to bolster support at election rallies. Mr Erdogan said part of gun suspect Brenton Tarrant's manifesto was to keep Turks from Europe. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters told Turkish officials showing the video was "unfair" and endangered his country's citizens abroad.
(...)
The president said the suspect had visited Turkey twice and wanted Turkish Muslims removed from Turkey's European territory on the western side of the Bosphorus. Mr Erdogan told a rally in Gaziantep: "What does it say? That we shouldn't go west of the Bosporus, meaning Europe. Otherwise, he would come to Istanbul, kill us all, drive us out of our land." Semi-blurred footage of part of the mosque attack was shown on screens at at least three rallies, along with extracts said to be from the online manifesto. Mr Erdogan also criticised the leader of Turkey's main opposition CHP party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, showing a clip of him talking about "terrorism rooted in the Islamic world".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47609814

[Heathen Hammer]

Once and for all, do you think attacking a mosque full of innocents is right or wrong?

Brenton Tarrant's intention was to "accelerate" things by making governments doing crazy authoritarian in response to the shooting, which would cause more dissent and opposition in response. Unfortunately, governments of Australia and NZ did exactly what the shooter wanted by threatening long prison sentences for even as much as watching his video, censoring and blocking websites and now restricting gun control.

[ioannis76]

You say 'deserter' as if it's some kind of insult. In what universe is refusing conscription by a tyrannical ruler a bad thing? Imagine WW2 was still on and we had refugees coming from Germany. Who would you have preferred to come into your country: people who joined the Wehrmacht, or conscientious objectors who refused to fight for the Nazis?

You say 'deserter' as if it's some kind of insult.

It's not just an insult, it's a freaking CRIME, and a very serious one at that.

In what universe is refusing conscription by a tyrannical ruler a bad thing?

In what universe do you get to pick and choose if you like the regime and act accordingly? And what exactly is the tyrannical regime? The regime that fights against the ISIS and the FSA as well as the rest of the groups of psychopathic drug addicts on a murder spree? Is your post pro-ISIS?

Imagine WW2 was still on and we had refugees coming from Germany.

Imagine WW2 was still on, and young men of combat age, who had been drafted, were leaving the US, Britain, and the other Allied countries in their thousands, to go to countries that don't participate in the war directly, but secretly arm Germany and the rest of the Axis. How about that?
Furthermore, imagine countries that offer shelter to former SS officers and troops, now posing as "innocent civilians" (actually there were such countries). Would you really like to see those officers and troops escape? Or would you prefer to see them face their rightful punishment?

Brenton Tarrant's intention was to "accelerate" things by making governments doing crazy authoritarian in response to the shooting, which would cause more dissent and opposition in response. Unfortunately, governments of Australia and NZ did exactly what the shooter wanted by threatening long prison sentences for even as much as watching his video, censoring and blocking websites and now restricting gun control.

The time of the attack troubles me. This is going to be a huge boon for pro-immigrant parties in the face of the Euro-elections, just at the time when pro-immigration policies seem to be collapsing.

[Copperknickers II]

It's not just an insult, it's a freaking CRIME, and a very serious one at that.

How is it a crime? It's not against the law of my country or of your country to refuse to fight for Assad. Unless you're suggesting the laws of a tyrannical regime in the Middle East have currency in Europe. Would you consider a gay Saudi Arabian a criminal, just because they were considered a criminal back home?

In what universe do you get to pick and choose if you like the regime and act accordingly?

Not sure I understand the question. Would you fight for Assad if you were Syrian? Would you gun down members of your own family in the street because they protested in favour of democracy? People who choose not to fight for Assad in Syria usually end up dead or being tortured in the dungeons of Damascus, unless they can escape. But it's definitely possible.

And what exactly is the tyrannical regime? The regime that fights against the ISIS and the FSA as well as the rest of the groups of psychopathic drug addicts on a murder spree?

The Assad regime does not fight against ISIS, they are in fact in alliance with them. The Kurds are the ones fighting ISIS. The Assad regime was previously fighting ISIS, yes. The Syria conflict is multi-faceted and cannot be divided into 'good guys vs bad guys' as you childishly and naively seek to do.

Imagine WW2 was still on, and young men of combat age, who had been drafted, were leaving the US, Britain, and the other Allied countries in their thousands, to go to countries that don't participate in the war directly, but secretly arm Germany and the rest of the Axis. How about that?

.. are you implying that European countries secretly arm ISIS? And comparing Assad to Churchill? Well, I guess you're right. Churchill was also a genocidal maniac who people would have been well within their rights to refuse to fight for.

Furthermore, imagine countries that offer shelter to former SS officers and troops, now posing as "innocent civilians" (actually there were such countries). Would you really like to see those officers and troops escape? Or would you prefer to see them face their rightful punishment?

ISIS members who come to Europe are imprisoned and punished, not sheltered. Of course, they can't face punishment if we cannot identify them, that takes a bit of work (which is no less true in Syria than it is in Europe).

The time of the attack troubles me. This is going to be a huge boon for pro-immigrant parties in the face of the Euro-elections, just at the time when pro-immigration policies seem to be collapsing.

Are pro-immigration policies collapsing? In what way are they collapsing?

[Aexodus]

And comparing Assad to Churchill? Well, I guess you're right. Churchill was also a genocidal maniac who people would have been well within their rights to refuse to fight for.

How can you say people would be within their rights to desert in WWII? Aren’t you British?

[95thrifleman]

We are comparing refugees to deserters now? So the WW2 Jewish refugees should of stayed in poland and germany to die?

[Knight of Heaven]

We are comparing refugees to deserters now?

If they are refugees because they deserted, then yes. That would make them deserters. I dont see how is this complicated.

So the WW2 Jewish refugees should of stayed in poland and germany to die?

Hows that even comparable? Ridiculous.
Poland was conquered. And The Jews in Nazi Germany were oppressed, i doubt they were able to get conscripted for the Nazi army at all.

Are pro-immigration policies collapsing? In what way are they collapsing?

General sentiment in favor of it, in Europe at least, isn't the same as it used to be, even political discourse in some countries as changed see italy, and Austria, and such. Even Germany, Merkel backpedaled her discourse about the refugee crisis etc.
Generally speaking i cant say the populations of Europe are viewing Immigration as once did. A big part of why Brexit won, was due to that issue as well.

The signs are there for everyone to see.

[swabian]

This modern world is getting worse, far right extremists and religious extremists are a massive massive issue. I fear this could motivate more from
both sides to retaliate.

That's the big erratum in my opinion: It's not getting worse (yet) it's getting better all the time. It's just that we're medially so tightly interconnected these days that it's probably too easy to observe what is going on in the world. This creates the illusion that hell is being raised (which is what the guy probably wanted), when actually the world becomes more safe day by day.

Btw i watched the video two times (the second time in order to stop and look into the guys face, because he filmed himself for 2 seconds or so)… what an utter :wub:. It's unbelievable. There was a woman he injured, writhing in pain on the ground and crying for help. The guy shot her without hesitation, like it's freaking computer game.
This guy is deeply disturbed and probably of the same brand as Behring-Breivik.
What does it help us to be aware of such things? It just exasperates us and leaves us frustrated. I don't know.

[Aexodus]

General sentiment in favor of it, in Europe at least, isn't the same as it used to be, even political discourse in some countries as changed see italy, and Austria, and such. Even Germany, Merkel backpedaled her discourse about the refugee crisis etc.
Generally speaking i cant say the populations of Europe are viewing Immigration as once did. A big part of why Brexit won, was due to that issue as well.

The signs are there for everyone to see.

Polls in the UK generally say most people view immigration positively. I’m among them, considering some of my family have immigrated back and forth within the Commonwealth. As well as that, NOT in spite of that, but instead simply additionally, most people also want immigration to decrease. This tells me people are not anti-immigration, they are anti-mass immigration.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ds-immigration

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Abdülmecid I]

Reopened. Please always remember to discuss the subject of the thread (Christchurch massacre), address the arguments and opinions expressed, instead of personally attacking your interlocutor and, generally, respect the Terms of Service.

[antaeus]

So let's reset the conversation.

Firstly regarding refugees.

Some of those murdered in Christchurch were refugees, however some were students, some migrated for work. But we shouldn't be limiting this statement to just those who were killed, if we look at the broad demographic of those worshipping in the two mosques, as well as the third possible target in Ashburton, we will see that there's virtually every possible combination of people there. There were Fijians, Australians, British, Indians, Jordanians, Saudis, as well as 2nd or 3rd generation New Zealanders. So regarding refugees, it's a bit of a red herring discussion. You don't protest against refugees by killing non refugees.

Regarding the perpetrator, and comparisons between Islamic and white supremacist terrorism.

This perpetrator was probably a solo crazy. Much in the same vein as the Fort Hood shooter. Influenced by others around the world, but not directly organised by them. So we need to keep that in mind when discussing broader issues.

When looking for causes we should avoid focusing on just Islamic terrorism or White supremacy. It's not a binary conversation. It's broad and nuanced. Islamic terrorists are for the most part an example of the defence of the powerless. They are people organising to respond to a direct and present violent threat to their society or culture. Whether you agree with their cause or not, people who resort to this sort of terrorism are doing so because they have lost the ability to influence outcomes through other means. The same was true of the IRA in the 1970s or ETA in the 1980s as it is for Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Political terrorism is political desperation materialised. The reason why we see a lot of it in Muslim countries and in particular the middle east, is because there is violence being conducted against communities there, now. It might be chicken and egg over the cause, but both internal and external actors are involved which makes people feel powerless. In different time periods terrorism has been prominent in other parts of the world.

The lone crazy on the other hand is responding on an individual level to a perceived issue that may not actually affect them in any way personally. They may respond to the same issue that a terrorist organisation does, but they have probably come to that belief through self education and have probably hardened in their belief because of a difficulty with empathy or some other personality issue. The crazy is a ticking time bomb of life influences looking for a cause. Terrorist organisations on the other hand are often reluctant people who have been pushed for what ever reason into an extreme response (Of course crazies can end up in terrorist organisations, but that's a coincidence)

So discussing specifically Islamic terrorism, white supremacy or any other individual situation is also red herring.

In this situation we're not dealing with a terrorist organisation with clear motives, rather we have a mentally unwell person who was stoked on by what they experienced first hand and what they read about. They created a personal narrative by mixing together all sorts of random stuff that justified their personal actions to themselves. The real question to come out of this situation is whether there is anything that can be done at all to stop this kind of atrocity that doesn't involve encroaching on personal freedoms. Sure gun control might help limit scope, but it doesn't address the root cause of someone with a concealed grudge who is disturbed enough to act on it. It disheartens me to say that I'm at a loss.

[Cyclops]

It disheartens me to say that I'm at a loss.

Its very disheartening to see a whole lot of people massacred, but the community response in Australia has been solid: we support the victims, the shooter is evil and his credo utter . My numerous Kiwi friends tell me thats the mood in NZ as well.

There's a handful of extremist jackasses jabbering away on the fringe about immigration and rubbish like that, and they're being treated with the disdain their bigotry deserves. One Australian politician has disgraced himself by jabbering and frothing in harmony with the shooter's idiot ideas (and this is a bloke definitely on the way out), the rest have recoiled in horror from this crap.

In terms of the response to the event, it has proved how a sound and healthy multicultural society can respond to imported terrorism with vigour and humanity.

There is some government over-reaction, the new gun laws by definition are rushed and from experienced will do very little in terms of numbers of people shot.

We had the same response after Port Arthur here. Gun deaths were already in decline, and that trend continued. Anecdotally its harder for crooks to get guns, but they still can (there was a "week of death" recently in my home city, with four gun murders).

The new gun laws (whatever they are and hopefully not too loony) will be an act of goodwill to calm the community at the expense of shooters. In my country the shooters en masse responded with goodwill as well, giving up truckloads of weapons and/or downgrading to weaker weapons/smaller mags etc. My farmer relatives still have their shotguns and rabbit rifles, there's the odd .222 for putting down a cow or taking out a wild dog. Once again anecdotally there's collectors and a few idiot wannabes with caches and heavier stuff stowed away, but they are fringe maniacs or stubborn collectors.

The actual number and type of guns in the community is only one factor in gun violence (as we see by contrasting US and Canadian experiences), if you have a healthy society with strong inclusion, strong services and at least an attempt to eradicate entrenched bigotry and racism then people are less likely to go on shooting sprees for any reason.