Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:57
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:Apparently, his manifesto was all over the place:
Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”
Weird stuff
he's a white nationalist. They are neither conservative nor liberal in their political ideology. They are more like the Nazis in their beliefs - white power, and all that sh1t; and that immigrants (Jews) are the problem.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:57
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Apparently, his manifesto was all over the place:
Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”
Weird stuff
Of course it’s all over the place, it’s a massive sh!tpost.
Right?
That it was more than one person is more disturbing. I suspect we'll find out more as the days go by.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:56
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
I have no idea why the information about this hero was deleted when I posted it a few moments ago:
Survivor Syed Mazharuddin told the NZ Herald: "The young guy who usually takes care of the mosque ... he saw an opportunity and pounced on (the gunman) and took his gun," said Mazharuddin.
"The hero tried to chase and he couldn't find the trigger in the gun ... he ran behind him but there were people waiting for him in the car and he fled."
That's impressive!!
Survivor Syed Mazharuddin told the NZ Herald: "The young guy who usually takes care of the mosque ... he saw an opportunity and pounced on (the gunman) and took his gun," said Mazharuddin.
"The hero tried to chase and he couldn't find the trigger in the gun ... he ran behind him but there were people waiting for him in the car and he fled."
That's impressive!!
Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:55
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:Apparently, his manifesto was all over the place:
Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”
Weird stuff
Of course it’s all over the place, it’s a massive sh!tpost.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:54
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Apparently, his manifesto was all over the place:
Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”
Weird stuff
Elsewhere, the shooter disparages conservatism and declines to identify with it, writing that “conservatism is dead, thank god,” and calling it “corporatism in disguise.” Conservatives, he says, “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does.”
Weird stuff
Anonymous
03/15/2019 16:32
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
The problem is with the more recently arrived Sunni and Ahmadi Muslims.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 15:19
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
I'm actually shocked that Faux news reported this like a tragedy and didn't find a way to spin against Muslims. I had to double check to make sure I was reading the correct site.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 15:03
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
The problem is with the more recently arrived Sunni and Ahmadi Muslims.
DP.... how many of them have committed a terrorist attack in New Zealand? Are they really the problem?
Here's a list of high profile shootings in NZ in the past. Not an extremist Muslim among the list.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/10447454/High-profile-shootings-in-New-Zealand
And now we can add this shooting to the list.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 14:50
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote: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.
The problem is with the more recently arrived Sunni and Ahmadi Muslims.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 14:48
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
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.
Dar Al Hijrah in 7 Corners has armed security but it is to keep away the MS 13 gangs in nearby
Culmore rather than white supremacists.
jsteele
03/15/2019 14:14
Subject: Re:Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote: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.
Where is it mentioned anywhere Black supremacists, Latin, Japanese, Iranian, India's or any other race, culture, what have you and dare I say, Islamic supremacists. I guess that for many it's just a bad gene in the white pool but by it's very beliefs, Islam is a supremacists delight and those on the fringe act out on it. So should we agree then that radical is out and Islamic supremacists in it then. I can do that.
I am really struggling to figure out your objection. You don't want white supremacists to be called "white supremacists" because other groups are not labeled as "supremacists"? If you were an orange, would you object to being called an "orange" because apples are not called "oranges"? Islamic extremists are called "Islamic extremists" because they have extreme beliefs about Islam. That distinguishes them from non-extremist Muslims who are generally peaceful people who prize generosity and kindness. Similarly, there are individuals who believe that the white race and European culture are superior to others. Hence, they are called "white supremacists". Not every white person is a white supremacist, so calling people like the Mosque shooter a "white supremacist" is more accurate than simply calling him a "white terrorist" or a "Christian terrorist".
jsteele
03/15/2019 14:07
Subject: Re:Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
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"?
I think the PP is fine with the term 'white supremacist' for the KKK, but not for Trump supporters. Because the left feels that Trump is a white supremacist, that doesn't make it so.
Nope. You should let PP speak for himself. He just did and you have misunderstood his complaint entirely.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 14:05
Subject: Re:Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
jsteele wrote: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.
Where is it mentioned anywhere Black supremacists, Latin, Japanese, Iranian, India's or any other race, culture, what have you and dare I say, Islamic supremacists. I guess that for many it's just a bad gene in the white pool but by it's very beliefs, Islam is a supremacists delight and those on the fringe act out on it. So should we agree then that radical is out and Islamic supremacists in it then. I can do that.
Anonymous
03/15/2019 14:04
Subject: Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
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
An Islamic mosque is not an “Asian church.”
Anonymous
03/15/2019 14:02
Subject: Re:Mass shooting at New Zealand mosque
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"?
I think the PP is fine with the term 'white supremacist' for the KKK, but not for Trump supporters. Because the left feels that Trump is a white supremacist, that doesn't make it so.