It just went down in New Zealand

[Knight of Heaven]

You think morality has anything to do with it? It's war, nobody gives a flying about right or wrong, just about survival and winning. None of our "civilised" western nations would be any different. People forget the IRA and Basque seperatists these days.

I dont. It is equally morally reprehensible. But this days, IRA and basque separatists bombings, are not an issue. Islamic terror have been an issue for a long time, and still is.

[conon394]

Oh well then that justifies it. If you cant fight your enemy go after their civilians as priority targets. Perfectly reasonable in XXI century.

Well it seems OK for the US to fill the skies with drones and bomb the od wedding and make other mistakes. Is that not really terrorism? Sure we aim to kill somebody off today's enemy list , but really to create ever present fear in them all and their friends and relations etc.

I dont. It is equally morally reprehensible.

True, but the question is in this last few answers to Diocle it asymmetric terrorism is the almost inevitable act of weak power trying to best another that is vastly stronger quite irrespective of religion or culture or one acting through proxies.

[Knight of Heaven]

Well it seems OK for the US to fill the skies with drones and bomb the od wedding and make other mistakes. Is that not really terrorism? Sure we aim to kill somebody off today's enemy list , but really to create ever present fear in them all and their friends and relations etc..

Didn't that happen during Obama tenure? Im sure the main targets weren't civilians.

[95thrifleman]

I dont. It is equally morally reprehensible. But this days, IRA and basque separatists bombings, are not an issue. Islamic terror have been an issue for a long time, and still is.

That's because the IRA got a compromise they could live with. Palestinians are still pretty much ed.

[Knight of Heaven]

That's because the IRA got a compromise they could live with. Palestinians are still pretty much ed.

So is Daesh this days from what i read in the news.

[95thrifleman]

So is Daesh this days from what i read in the news.

The islamic caliphate was never sustainable.

People do seem to forget that the vast majority of "islamic" terrorism is sectarian violence between muslim communities due to a range of factors that have very little to do with islam.

Even the terror groups that operate out of religous reasons target more of their own kind. Isis killed far more muslims for not following the "right" kind of islam than non-muslims. much as the inquisition and other christian groups killed far more of their fellow christians for not following the "RIGHT" kind of christianity than they killed pagans, witches or jews.

The thing that annoys me is a terrorist that has brown skin and says allah is ALWAYS labeled a terrorist because he's a muslim, his religion is labeled the cause and the sole cause and all muslims are therefore evil etc. When a white guy or a christian does it, then his motives are carefully dissected and looked at on an individual basis.

ALL terrorism needs to be looked at on this careful basis and the real reasons identified and dealt with or we will end up with the ing stupid race wars Tarrant was trying to start.

[conon394]

Didn't that happen during Obama tenure? Im sure the main targets weren't civilians.

Did I blame any particular administration. Its been a thing since Bush Jr. The main targets might not be civilians but there is a casual indifference to them becoming targets. My point being if you are the Taliban how are you going to fight back. Now a days the drones fly high enough you likely don't even notice them. A stand up fight with the US is a death sentence anyway. You only real backer is just the fact you can hide to some extent in Pakistan (but not from the drones). So inevitably you terrorism against civilians becomes an option. You have access to dead endears and proving the Government and the US can't keep the general population safe, might not win hearts and minds but it keeps the other side from winning them as well.

[95thrifleman]

Did I blame any particular administration. Its been a thing since Bush Jr. The main targets might not be civilians but there is a casual indifference to them becoming targets. My point being if you are the Taliban how are you going to fight back. Now a days the drones fly high enough you likely don't even notice them. A stand up fight with the US is a death sentence anyway. You only real backer is just the fact you can hide to some extent in Pakistan (but not from the drones). So inevitably you terrorism against civilians becomes an option. You have access to dead endears and proving the Government and the US can't keep the general population safe, might not win hearts and minds but it keeps the other side from winning them as well.

It can be argued that Britain flattened German cities because we couldn't fight them toe to toe properly untill 1942/43 and continued to do so just to kill civilians.

If somebody set off a nuke or major bio-weapon in a US city, i guarantee the nation responsible would be dust the next week and very few yanks would give a about the civilians killed.

[Big War Bird]

Ok. Give us your rundown on what countries, cultures and religions make up the Balkans, as well as how that has changed since, say, 1000AD, when the cultural murder started, and why.

Nothing I said can be construed to mean that I object to ethnic conflicts in the Balkans. I didn't even address such a thing, and I didn't even implied an objection. You seem to be confusing your own lack of success in articulation of a point with a non-existent objection. Yes, you've said quite a bit on this thread, but none of that explained how mass immigration has a link to far right terrorism.

I haven't mention "far right" or "terrorism."

The ethnic conflicts of the Balkans are an example of how badly it can go for socially heterogeneous states. Those that advocate for multiculturalism are trying to build socially heterogeneous states. That will not go well. We can however, with constant, difficult effort, build a homogenizing society from disparate social groups.

So Mr. South Carolina, how many muslims have you met?

Quite a few, all but one of which are thoroughly secularized Americans. For 2 years worked as a night security guard with a man that can fairly be described as a terrorist. He had been a body guard for Arafat until Arafat went soft. You should have seen the gleam in his eyes he talked about the PLA.

[AnthoniusII]

I haven't mention "far right" or "terrorism."

To my children - The ethnic conflicts of the Balkans are an example of how badly it can go for socially heterogeneous states. Those that advocate for multiculturalism are trying to build socially heterogeneous states. That will not go well. We can however, with constant, difficult effort, build a homogenizing society from disparate social groups.



Quite a few, all but one of which are thoroughly secularized Americans. For 2 years worked as a night security guard with a man that can fairly be described as a terrorist. He had been a body guard for Arafat until Arafat went soft. You should have seen the gleam in his eyes he talked about the PLA.

Multiculturral societies are not a real problem. Through out the entire human history multicultural societies survived and became glorius. But there was no religion extremism in them.
Roman Empire is a great example.
An other example is the Persian invasions in Greece.
Also for 400 years in modern Afganistan a Hellenistic kingdom survived successfully merging hundreds of cultures and human races.
So the diferent culture or religion of your neighbor is not a problem when there is a mutial RESPECT. Western societies live the post-slavery/colonisation trauma as i call it.
First they invaded in foreigh lands, looting their resources and after centuries they gave their former slaves their citizenship to have cheap labor force.
But golobanisation made that former cheap labor force expensive and the western society ellite found new slaves to make profit. So in order to put their former slaves and today citizens under control they put them outside of the society in modern getos!
5 years before the aperence of ISIL there was a mojor uprissing in Paris from the former colony oringin unemployed youth that police brutalised them treating them as animals that no longer need.
Such behaviur gave a fertile soil to extremists like far right and religius fanatics (do not forget that KKK re-apeared also) to offer some kind of hope of a bright future to them that faced a dead end in their dreams!
The same method that Hitler gave "hope" to Germans after a long depresion between WW1 and WW2.
Its not an accident the those extremists come often from rich societies like Britain, France, Germany, Norway etc...70% of ISIL warriors came from those countries...
Conclusion...taking all hopes for a future or a dream from a human being you turn him to an animall. So its not the multi cultural societies that birth voilence its the policies that citizens of those societies choose to suport that create monsters.
Westerners got used to look to the rest of the world as their property...stealing other people's history, monuments, pride and honor and they expect the rest of the world to accept that fact without a reaction.
But ...in a multicultural or not society, HONOR is a virtue that has been forgoten. There is NO HONOR to murder innocent children and elders inorder to feel superior...A real warior fights the REAL enemy face to face and NEVER TOUCHES civilians.
We talk today about Christianity and Islam under a history's prospective but we choose to ignore that back in time there was a respect to the worthy enemy. Now there is no respect to human life at all...And after that lack of respect we dare to call ourselves HUMANS?

[AqD]

There is NO HONOR to murder innocent children and elders inorder to feel superior...A real warior fights the REAL enemy face to face and NEVER TOUCHES civilians.

So, in this case, who would be the real enemy to that crazy? Whom should he shoot instead?

There you see the problem.

[Copperknickers II]

To my children - The ethnic conflicts of the Balkans are an example of how badly it can go for socially heterogeneous states. Those that advocate for multiculturalism are trying to build socially heterogeneous states. That will not go well. We can however, with constant, difficult effort, build a homogenizing society from disparate social groups.

The peoples of the Balkans have lived there for 1000 years. They had if anything LESS conflicts than people in other regions of Europe until the mid 1800s, followed by a period of relative peace after WW1, followed by war again in the 1990s. They are currently much safer to visit than poor areas of the USA, Mexico and the former USSR. Meanwhile, some of the safest places on planet earth are Australia, Canada, Britain, Germany and Singapore, which are also literally the MOST multicultural places on earth. There is no correlation between ethnic diversity and violence/civil strife. The correlation is between peaceful democratic socialist governments which place a value on education vs third world or quasi-third world oligarchies rife with inequality, ignorance and Nationalism. The latter is what causes crime and civil strife, not immigration. The problems in Britain and France can largely be attributed to right wing (by European standards) oligarchical governments in the Postwar period which failed working class areas, both white and non-white, Christian and Muslim.

[I_Damian]

Terror attacks are just part and parcel of living in a modern city.

-Sadiq Khan.

[Big War Bird]

Multiculturral societies are not a real problem. Through out the entire human history multicultural societies survived and became glorius. But there was no religion extremism in them.
Roman Empire is a great example.

Here is I think I pertinent analysis of the Roman Empire, "they make a desert, and call it peace." The Romans killed everything that resisted their power. What happened to the societies that resisted Roman power? Killed or sold into slavery. What happened to the Gauls, the Jews, the Carthaginians or the Greeks. The choices were clear, submit, become Roman, or be destroyed.

I watched the video of the shooting last night. I watched a man 4 dozen people. I suppose he thought we has holding Western civilization together by killing those people. Roman soldiers did the same for their civilization, tens of thousands of times over. If w could put a GoPro on the helmet of a Centurion sacking Carthage what do you think it would look like? It would look like Christchurch, but instead of 49 people it would be a half a million people.

And you say the Roman Empire was a great example of multicultural society? I suppose it was. Go watch the video and see just for a few minutes what it was to be a Roman soldier doing his duty.

The peoples of the Balkans have lived there for 1000 years. They had if anything LESS conflicts than people in other regions of Europe until the mid 1800s,

And how do you think the Ottomans kept the "peace" in the Balkans?

See above.

Meanwhile, some of the safest places on planet earth are Australia, Canada, Britain, Germany and Singapore, which are also literally the MOST multicultural places on earth.

Sigh, you haven't been paying attention.

[PointOfViewGun]

I haven't mention "far right" or "terrorism."

To my children - The ethnic conflicts of the Balkans are an example of how badly it can go for socially heterogeneous states. Those that advocate for multiculturalism are trying to build socially heterogeneous states. That will not go well. We can however, with constant, difficult effort, build a homogenizing society from disparate social groups.

Sigh... Looks like you have no idea what you were respond to in the first place. It would help if you actually read the context.

[Caduet]

Its dumb because its perpetuating the idea that culture and ethnicity are concrete things that persist over time and that they will always inevitably create conflict between human beings who possess different before mentioned items.

This is not inevitable if we understand the nature of culture and ethnicity/race as being constructs of the human mind that are forever in flux and undefined. Culture is always changing and the culture of New Zealand in 1985 had all but been replaced by what it is now. Sure there is some continuity, but just as French culture of the 1700's is unrecognizable to French culture today, eventually the culture of New Zealand of today will not be recognizable in the future . You can't protect it, and it will evolve whether the population is "homogeneous" or not.

That's why it doesn't make sense to fear Muslims immigrating into a country.There is no Islamic culture that can dominate because it doesn't exist as a united entity. It isn't a consistent thing and it has evolved into something unrecognizable from where it was 1000 years ago. Ask yourself a couple questions about whether Islam can be considered a coherent ideology. Do all Muslim dominated countries abide by the same laws and ethics? Do they all agree on how society should be organized and run? Do we assume that every Muslim interprets their holy book the same way, or that they actually are unable to adapt it over time? Are they all interested in forcing their religion onto others and abstain from taking on ideas from other societies?


Now looking at race. Can we really define what race or ethnicity is? Are there a series of check boxes that we can check off so that we can categorize human beings in objectively coherent ways? What does it mean to be white? Can you even define that? Are there inherent biological characteristics that are unique to whites that can never be obtained by other races? Should they be preserved? By what ethical basis would you use to justify this?

There was a time in human history where we were all brown skinned and where we could not conceptualize the idea of a nation or an ethnicity. If we get to this point through peaceful means and integration over time it doesn't mean we lost any sense of who we truly are. It just means there will be less superficial characteristics divide us arbitrarily. Recognizing the social construction of these things are crucial in allowing us to come them in the future and it will enable us to prevent our own destruction before it's too late.

Extrapolating from the manifesto, it would seem he believes culture/race exist on a spectrum/overlapping spheres, with European races/cultures being on one end and Islamic and Asian and whatever being much further apart. As he says, an Australian in New Zealand or an Austrian in Bavaria can blend better than a Somali in either of those places. The distance on the spectrum leads to a culture shock when they mix. I would guess from his writing is that he doesn't fear cultural change, which as you said is an inevitable part of the march of time, but cultural replacement, which he feels is caused by the globalist economic race to the bottom and the importation of large amounts of people far away from the "europe" end of the culture spectrum.

Regarding race, he just says anyone ethnically Euro is "white", anyone who isn't is "non-white". I agree this is where things get pretty fuzzy, especially when it comes to the border between Europe and Asia. The Balkans and where exactly European Russia turns to Asian Russia and so forth.

He would probably violently disagree with your desire for us all to morph into a monorace of brown people with no notion of nation or identity. In fact, it seems his main aim is to prevent exactly that kind of dystopia and I frankly cannot fault him for that motivation. He states his attack is not anti-diversity, but in the defense of diversity. He compares different cultures to a rainbow, beautiful only because of the contrast, if you mix all the colors you get a depressing gray sludge. I see people claim he must be nothing more than some child-porn addicted chanscum, but its clear he is a deeper thinker than those people.

Tarrant isn’t Christian

He states his relationship with Christianity is complicated. He actually thinks about his beliefs. In this, he is a FAR better example of a Christian, or any religion really, than some brainwashed Wahhabi fanatic.

Reading his manifesto I'm struck by the sheer hypocrisy considering what his "european" australian people did to the natives.

Not really, he states the only real governing power throughout history is violent force. In essence, might makes right. The Europeans were stronger and took what they wanted. It also explains why, despite being a /pol/ack, he doesn't seem to have a problem with israel. He clearly agrees with the right of conquest. However, he would most likely (again extrapolating from the manifesto) agree that the natives would be right to fight back against European invaders by any means necessary.

There is a lot of obscurantism here about this criminal's personal beliefs.

He is Christian in so far as countless online anti-Islam types (here included) are Christian. That is to say a proponent of the usual image board memes about Deus Vault, Turk roaches, remove kebab, Defend Europa, Replacement Theory, See you in Valhalla etc. A standard mixture of a very pagan ( and American) brand of white nationalism blended with an alt-right "Christian" worldview. Throw in his standard western liberal complaints towards Muslims being homophobic, with an obvious liking for Israel and you have your average Breitbart reader....

His alleged eco-fascism is also suspect since he has nothing but praise for China.

And reading the comments at Breitbart and even Yahoo, the boomer consensus is basically "muzzies had it coming" and they are more concerned about what their governments are going to do with their gun rights while wondering why everyone "forgot" all the islamic terrorist attacks. Which is EXACTLY what Tarrant predicted and was going for.

I read his manifesto, it's odd. Reads like a copy-pasted thing he downloaded off the net and just filled in the questions.

The main thing is the scumbag will be forgotten about in a few news cycles just like breivik

It may look "odd" to you because it is post-postmodernist. There is no "FAQ" template for mass shooters for him to copy-paste. This guys is 28, he has grown up in the age of mass-shooting and terrorism and has seen the all predictable media responses many times. He already knows what questions will be asked because he no doubt asked those questions himself and saw the media asking those questions when seeing the aftermath of the past couple decades of terrorism. The familiarity breeds contempt, hence the sarcastic answer in the "did videogames make you do this" question.

And you are right that this guy will no doubt be forgotten by the new in a few cycles. He knows it too and states that exact thing in the manifesto. He doesn't care about that. His actions will have ripples though, and I think he was right about that.

[I_Damian]

He had "for Rotherham" written on one of his guns. I know he had many reasons for what he did, but governments in western nations should understand that their covering up of the mass rape of children by Muslims for the sake of diversity is partly the cause of this.

Everybody is so keen to blame Donald Trump and "the far right". Honestly, they need to be looking into the far left and the governments who did nothing for decades as children were raped, tortured and even killed. These things really pissed people off, and now one of them has gone on a rampage because of it.

Future doesn't look good. Forced diversity isn't gonna work. Just sayin'. We need some kind of plan which will result in different people in a diverse society living together in peace and harmony. It'll be the first time in history that such a thing has ever been achieved, but our governments are hell bent on this future for us, so they should have a plan.

[Ludicus]

How did he endorse him?

The word is "inspired", not "endorse".
Trump didn't pull the trigger,but the terrorist who did praised him as a "symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose."
endorse definition: 1. to make a public statement of your approval or support for something or someone
Inspiration:"someone or something that gives you ideas for doing something"
---
Let's move on.The terrorist also wrote, "the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens", in an answer to the question, “Is there a particular person that radicalized you the most?”
"Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for me are too much, even for my tastes"

Owens responded "LOL... The Left pretending I inspired a mosque massacre in New Zealand".
So, according to Ovens, the white supremacist/ terrorist is leftist.
----
Who is Owens? Owens is a right wing commentator, founder of the Blexit, an ethno nationalist/ islamophobic, and National Socialism's/Hitler apologist. She supports the most racist President in the US history.

His manifesto and subsequent actions were directed towards a multifaceted global audience. The media, alt-right trolls, Far Right white supremacists, and anyone who spends a lot of time on the internet..

That's the reason why I said that hate should be criminalized. Re: Should hate be a crime?
David Ibsen. Counter Extremism Project. Statement, Friday, March 15, 2018

The global network of white nationalist extremism depends on the framework of social media. The inaction of social media platforms in addressing this problem serves to perpetuate it. The online spread of extremist ideologies can no longer be ignored and should be tackled at the root. We should not hide behind misplaced freedom of expression concerns to prevent us dealing with content that incites hate and violence.

----

Yet he referenced Pope Urban in the manifeso....

Undoubtedly, a religious reference." Us" versus"them". For white supremacists the Pope Urban II ais "the intellectual father of Islamophobia, a political genius, a great man"- as Diocle put it. Orban, for example, vows to create "The Christian homeland".
On a side note, Orban asks European conservatives not to expel his party
apologising for offensive language but maintaining his political positions, which are " The protection of Christian culture and the future of Europe". The EEP says Orban's apology is not good enough, he did not apologise for his EU politics in general, by imposing ruling party control over the judiciary, media and other institutions, and for his blatant xenophobia and anti-Semitism.
---
In fact, the primary goal of the First Crusade was the defense of the holy places. However, as Benjamin Kedar points out in his essay on the Jerusalem massacre of 1099 (PDF) The Jerusalem Conquest of 492/1099 in the Medieval Arabic
in our western tradition, writers since the 12th century - and still today- have used the Crusades as a vehicle by which they have expressed their views not only about the Crusades themselves, but also about violence, religion and society: crusades as "triumphs of faith", or "fanatical poison"engendered by religion in general. Make your choice.

[Aexodus]

His entire manifesto was a troll. He wants to inflame the so called ‘culture war’ and accelerate - thus he is an accelerationist - the destruction of Western countries so a white ethnostate can take their place.

He wants to provoke the right and the left against eachother, for the left to create hate speech laws and authoritarian measures, and for the right to think their liberty is being taken from them.

Keep calm guys.

[Caduet]

His entire manifesto was a troll. He wants to inflame the so called ‘culture war’ and accelerate - thus he is an accelerationist - the destruction of Western countries so a white ethnostate can take their place.

He wants to provoke the right and the left against eachother, for the left to create hate speech laws and authoritarian measures, and for the right to think their liberty is being taken from them.

There is trolling in it but on the whole the manifesto is, as he describes it, an effortpost and not a :wub:. Also, that suff is already happening with liberties being reduced and removed. As the name accelerationism implies, you're only speeding up an already ongoing process.

meanwhile, turns out this isn't the 1st time the mosque he initially targeted had been in the news:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140727...death-by-drone
Articles been deleted "for some reason" but obviously you can still read it. To summarize, a couple Christchurch boys converted to Islam at that mosque and then ended up getting drone-strike'd in Yemen. What a timeline.