Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 2012 -- seven killed by white supremacist.

Charleston church, 2015 -- nine killed by white supremacist

Quebec City mosque, 2017 -- six killed by white supremacist.

Tree of Life Synagogue, 2018 -- eleven killed by white supremacist.

New Zealand Mosques, 2019 -- 49 killed by white supremacist.

Quite the trend.

I think we should stop calling them supremacists. They are just killers. Killers that are white. We need to stop dividing killers by race. It just feeds the divide. Killing is wrong.

You're quite right. They should pass a law making it illegal, that will surely stop this madness.

No. I just thing that these conversations just end up becoming race wars instead of focusing on murders as just human killers that need to be punished. All killing is wrong no matter the race or religion of the killer or the victim.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it? Remember all the times conservatives demanded that Obama say, “radical Islam”? That was even one of Trump’s campaign issues and he took great delight in saying it (to great cheers from the crowds). So, as they used to say, “why won’t you say ‘white supremacist’?”

Correct.


And Obama never gave in, never used the term.


So there ya go. There's the precedent.

There are some evil Muslims who kill people, but Trumpsters call *all* Muslims and their religion "evil. There are some evil white people who hate nonwhite people and murder them, but Trumpsters don't want people to call *all* white people white supremacist murders. All muslim killers are considered "terrorists", but white supremacist killers are not called "terrorists" but "mentally ill".

That's why people keep pointing out the hypocrisy about this.

[Anonymous]

My first reaction - there are guns in New Zealand?

I thought they were heavily banned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who's up for arming Muslims with guns so they can protect themselves in mosques while they are praying?

I am waiting for all the 'good guy with a gun" folks to chime in.

In America, anyone can purchase a weapon for protection.

Are you going to suggest we use US taxpayer dollars to arm the citizens of NZ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Andrew yang predicted this.

Hours before some right winger tweeted a video of Andrew saying how some white shooter is gonna shoot up an asian church.

Lots of white pro types were railing on it.

Hours later, NZ happens

Maybe he's somehow connected to that world?

Remember how the FBI used some similar tweets to go after Roger Stone re. Wikileaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 2012 -- seven killed by white supremacist.

Charleston church, 2015 -- nine killed by white supremacist

Quebec City mosque, 2017 -- six killed by white supremacist.

Tree of Life Synagogue, 2018 -- eleven killed by white supremacist.

New Zealand Mosques, 2019 -- 49 killed by white supremacist.

Quite the trend.

I think we should stop calling them supremacists. They are just killers. Killers that are white. We need to stop dividing killers by race. It just feeds the divide. Killing is wrong.

You're quite right. They should pass a law making it illegal, that will surely stop this madness.

No. I just thing that these conversations just end up becoming race wars instead of focusing on murders as just human killers that need to be punished. All killing is wrong no matter the race or religion of the killer or the victim.

You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

I was the original poster with the passing the law bit. Some here are so hell bent on passing a law thinking that it will be the end all solution. Exactly how many different laws do you need to say murder is forbidden and you will be at a minimum incarcerated. The other comment I gave to someone who brought up a sideways reference that the constitution pertains to muskets. Really? As again, empty headed sound bites with no facts provided. Look up a Puckel gun (It really was named after the inventor) and the year is was created. See what air-gun Lewis and Clark used. My reply was based on if we were restricted to use only what was commonly in use AT THAT TIME, we would need to go down to the village green to hear the town cryer proclaim what is news and not the electronics in use today. You simply can't cherry pick only what you as an individual considers important and ignore the whole.

Excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My first reaction - there are guns in New Zealand?

I thought they were heavily banned.

More controlled in Australia than NZ.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/new-zealand-gun-control-intl/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 2012 -- seven killed by white supremacist.

Charleston church, 2015 -- nine killed by white supremacist

Quebec City mosque, 2017 -- six killed by white supremacist.

Tree of Life Synagogue, 2018 -- eleven killed by white supremacist.

New Zealand Mosques, 2019 -- 49 killed by white supremacist.

Quite the trend.

I think we should stop calling them supremacists. They are just killers. Killers that are white. We need to stop dividing killers by race. It just feeds the divide. Killing is wrong.

You're quite right. They should pass a law making it illegal, that will surely stop this madness.

No. I just thing that these conversations just end up becoming race wars instead of focusing on murders as just human killers that need to be punished. All killing is wrong no matter the race or religion of the killer or the victim.

You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

I was the original poster with the passing the law bit. Some here are so hell bent on passing a law thinking that it will be the end all solution. Exactly how many different laws do you need to say murder is forbidden and you will be at a minimum incarcerated. The other comment I gave to someone who brought up a sideways reference that the constitution pertains to muskets. Really? As again, empty headed sound bites with no facts provided. Look up a Puckel gun (It really was named after the inventor) and the year is was created. See what air-gun Lewis and Clark used. My reply was based on if we were restricted to use only what was commonly in use AT THAT TIME, we would need to go down to the village green to hear the town cryer proclaim what is news and not the electronics in use today. You simply can't cherry pick only what you as an individual considers important and ignore the whole.

Excellent post.

Exactly. It’s 2019. Everyone should have their own nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Statement released by an Australian Senator

Wow. That is f-ed up. I wonder if he will be forced to resign.

What is wrong with speaking the truth?

How many Muslims have committed terrorist attacks in New Zealand? I'm betting the Maoris feel the white men a long time ago were terrorists.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised there are Muslims in NZ to begin with.

It is super hard to move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised there are Muslims in NZ to begin with.

It is super hard to move there.

There is a sizable Fijian Muslim community that has lived there for along time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, 2012 -- seven killed by white supremacist.

Charleston church, 2015 -- nine killed by white supremacist

Quebec City mosque, 2017 -- six killed by white supremacist.

Tree of Life Synagogue, 2018 -- eleven killed by white supremacist.

New Zealand Mosques, 2019 -- 49 killed by white supremacist.

Quite the trend.

I think we should stop calling them supremacists. They are just killers. Killers that are white. We need to stop dividing killers by race. It just feeds the divide. Killing is wrong.

You're quite right. They should pass a law making it illegal, that will surely stop this madness.

No. I just thing that these conversations just end up becoming race wars instead of focusing on murders as just human killers that need to be punished. All killing is wrong no matter the race or religion of the killer or the victim.

You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

I was the original poster with the passing the law bit. Some here are so hell bent on passing a law thinking that it will be the end all solution. Exactly how many different laws do you need to say murder is forbidden and you will be at a minimum incarcerated. The other comment I gave to someone who brought up a sideways reference that the constitution pertains to muskets. Really? As again, empty headed sound bites with no facts provided. Look up a Puckel gun (It really was named after the inventor) and the year is was created. See what air-gun Lewis and Clark used. My reply was based on if we were restricted to use only what was commonly in use AT THAT TIME, we would need to go down to the village green to hear the town cryer proclaim what is news and not the electronics in use today. You simply can't cherry pick only what you as an individual considers important and ignore the whole.

Excellent post.

Exactly. It’s 2019. Everyone should have their own nuclear weapons.

Quite a cheeky little fellow arn't you? See what I mean by one who wears a hat with a propeller on the top.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your objections to labeling white supremacists "white supremacists" but support for calling radical islamists "radical Islamists"?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your objections to labeling white supremacists "white supremacists" but support for calling radical islamists "radical Islamists"?

No, I don't actually. Are you are saying it would be better to just say Islamists are... or had.... or are you debating semantics, or perhaps just not thinking this through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to sum it up: great ideas, poor execution.

He had all the correct thoughts though, according to you.

Not at all. But seems like he may have better judgement about Trump than the MAGA idiots.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're correct in that but I find it's a backlash to it almost always starts with a white comment. I'm sure some are just trolls stirring the pot, others have a server case of white guilt. Sometimes being a little pedantic is a good thing from separating segments of societies. If you notice in certain postings before this one, there is a definite lean towards all supremacists are white. I find they come in all colors, races, religions, cultures, castes and so on but by and far here, they are white.

On the separation part as a sample. The above is extremely proud that Obama did not state "radical Islamists". Fine with me then it was a group of Islamists that brought down the Twin Towers. Isis is composed of Islamists. Now with that, the propeller on top of their ball caps will start to spin and conjour up some sort of name for me, not provide any facts to dispute me and be satisfied. It's like arguing with a petulant child.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your objections to labeling white supremacists "white supremacists" but support for calling radical islamists "radical Islamists"?

No, I don't actually. Are you are saying it would be better to just say Islamists are... or had.... or are you debating semantics, or perhaps just not thinking this through.

I'm not really debating anything. I am wondering why you oppose calling one group by a descriptive label but support calling another group by a similarly descriptive label. It is a very strange and contradictory stance to take. I'm surprised that you don't see it as hypocritical as that seems obvious.