Shooting in a mosque in NZ...

bigmarlon said:
Lads.

The bloke literally wrote in his manifesto that he hates both the left and right. He wanted to start a race war, and a war between the left and right. You're all doing EXACTLY what he wanted. Everybody seems to have forgotten about the 50 victims and are now blaming eachother, again, EXACTLY what he wanted.
Click to expand...

spot on.. the NZ PM has refused to use his name when speaking about the event for this reason.
 


elder said:
spot on.. the NZ PM has refused to use his name when speaking about the event for this reason.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that, wise move by the PM.

The media are loving it. They're loving the fact they can stoke the fire and repeatedly print "right-wing" and "white supremacist" over and over again knowing that it'll create anger and tension towards conservatives and white people. It's EXACTLY what the fucker wanted. He's trolling the world.
 
bigmarlon said:
I didn't know that, wise move by the PM.

The media are loving it. They're loving the fact they can stoke the fire and repeatedly print "right-wing" and "white supremacist" over and over again knowing that it'll create anger and tension towards conservatives and white people. It's EXACTLY what the fucker wanted. He's trolling the world.
Click to expand...

she's literally just said it... she must have read your post! :lol:
 
i thought this post from Another Angry Voice summed it quite well. i'm sick to the back teeth of this game of who is the worst/best at hatred/violence and who is/isn't outraged at everything/nothing. its pathetic

Some people will try to equivocate between these atrocities as if one side is inherently worse than the other, but the fact is that the extreme-right fanatics and the Islamist extremists are the opposite sides of the exact same coin.

Both ideologies forment hatred and division in order to further their own agendas, both ideologies promote and use violence, both ideologies feature hate-preaching demagogues, both ideologies dehumanise other human beings, both ideologies use "clash of civilisations" rhetoric to rile up their supporters, both ideologies consider targeting random civilians to be legitimate tactics in their "ideological war", both ideologies detest non-conformity to their warped worldviews, and both ideologies represent a real and present danger to ordinary peaceful civilians (especially to Muslim civilians who make up the vast majority of the victims of Islamist extremists as well as the extreme-right terrorists).

Anyone trying to make out that one side is somehow inherently worse than the other is not just ignoring the fact that the two ideologies are locked in a a symbiotic relationship of hatred and division, but they're despicably picking a favourite side in this tournament of hate when the only decent and humane stance is to vehemently condemn absolutely anyone who decides that murdering civilians is justified by their political agenda.
Click to expand...
 
pillars of hercules said:
The shooting today in Utrecht has proved my point where 3 were killed. A pistol was used and if this was an automatic assault weapon there would have been many more fatalities.
Click to expand...
No shit. He could have hired an HGV instead and killed 50+.

People still died needlessly.

Glad you proved your point about automatic weapons being dangerous though.

Keep on missing the point it's the dangerous people we need to be stopping instead of their chosen murder weapon.
 
Last edited:
Grammar Police said:
No shit. He could have hired an HGV instead and killed 50+.

People still died needlessly.

Glad you proved your point about automatic weapons being dangerous though.

Keep on missing the point it's the dangerous people we need to be stopping instead of their chosen murder weapon.
Click to expand...
Seems to be the way all over at the minute spending hundreds of thousands on symptoms rather than the actual causes.
 
Grammar Police said:
No shit. He could have hired an HGV instead and killed 50+.

People still died needlessly.

Glad you proved your point about automatic weapons being dangerous though.

Keep on missing the point it's the dangerous people we need to be stopping instead of their chosen murder weapon.
Click to expand...
No you are missing the point! You are implying that available weapon choice isn't important. It it obvious that a nutter will kill with whatever he has at his disposal. Yes its possible to hire a HGV, but unless you are a qualified driver they would not hire it and if you weren't the chances of you using it efficiently are vastly reduced. Explosives are very unreliable especially homemade.

An automatic assault weapon on the other hand is specially made to kill and very good at the job. They are very easy to use, even at close quarters and can be reloaded in seconds.

It is practically impossible to prevent someone with a particular ideology from killing , but restricting their weapon of choice (ie. Specifically designed mass slaughter machine) can limit the damage dramatically. If there wasnt a difference the army would just drive HGVs at the enemy :confused:
 
pillars of hercules said:
No you are missing the point! You are implying that available weapon choice isn't important. It it obvious that a nutter will kill with whatever he has at his disposal. Yes its possible to hire a HGV, but unless you are a qualified driver they would not hire it and if you weren't the chances of you using it efficiently are vastly reduced. Explosives are very unreliable especially homemade.

An automatic assault weapon on the other hand is specially made to kill and very good at the job. They are very easy to use, even at close quarters and can be reloaded in seconds.

It is practically impossible to prevent someone with a particular ideology from killing , but restricting their weapon of choice (ie. Specifically designed mass slaughter machine) can limit the damage dramatically. If there wasnt a difference the army would just drive HGVs at the enemy :confused:
Click to expand...
Joined into this debate late so no idea what the context of your disagreement here is but everything you’ve said there is spot on!
 
tunstallhill said:
i thought this post from Another Angry Voice summed it quite well. i'm sick to the back teeth of this game of who is the worst/best at hatred/violence and who is/isn't outraged at everything/nothing. its pathetic
Click to expand...
That was a good shout and they're right, they are different sides of the same coin. This moron Brenton even has the same bleating used by islamists off down pat.

Our poor bwothers and sisters are being killed in Sywia...so I have to kill some innocent people and I want you to do the same thing. Bwaaaaaaaaa.
White girls have been waped in Wotherham...so I have to kill some innocent people and I want you to do the same thing. Bwaaaaaaaa.

It really is pathetic how these fools seek to justify their actions. On all sides.
 
pillars of hercules said:
No you are missing the point! You are implying that available weapon choice isn't important. It it obvious that a nutter will kill with whatever he has at his disposal. Yes its possible to hire a HGV, but unless you are a qualified driver they would not hire it and if you weren't the chances of you using it efficiently are vastly reduced. Explosives are very unreliable especially homemade.

An automatic assault weapon on the other hand is specially made to kill and very good at the job. They are very easy to use, even at close quarters and can be reloaded in seconds.

It is practically impossible to prevent someone with a particular ideology from killing , but restricting their weapon of choice (ie. Specifically designed mass slaughter machine) can limit the damage dramatically. If there wasnt a difference the army would just drive HGVs at the enemy :confused:
Click to expand...
OK then, let's just ban machine guns.

Problem solved.
 
Doeboy said:
Joined into this debate late so no idea what the context of your disagreement here is but everything you’ve said there is spot on!
Click to expand...
I'm not really disagreeing that sorting the causes are the most important issue, but it makes a massive difference to incident outcomes.

Grammar Police said:
OK then, let's just ban machine guns.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
It doesn't solve the problem, it makes the outcome of incidents less extreme. Some things will always be available as they are necessary to some people. Transport companies need lorries and farmers need guns and fertiliser. Some people are mad and will use these things to maim. Banning machine guns is damage limitation so what's the problem.
 
Last edited:
bigmarlon said:
I didn't know that, wise move by the PM.

The media are loving it. They're loving the fact they can stoke the fire and repeatedly print "right-wing" and "white supremacist" over and over again knowing that it'll create anger and tension towards conservatives and white people. It's EXACTLY what the fucker wanted. He's trolling the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah White Supreamacy is known to just go away when people don’t talk about it. That’s how it works like.

That’s what happened in Weimar Germany. The Nazis were a fringe party, their leader went to prison after a violent incident and was ignored as a trivial extremist, and no-one ever heard from them again because like the tooth fairy if you pretend it’s not real it just doesn’t exist.

I think exactly what he wanted was for people like you to come out the back of an incident like Friday in which 50 Muslims were killed and come to the conclusion that it’s White People who need protecting actually.
 
Last edited:
JonMc said:
That was a good shout and they're right, they are different sides of the same coin. This moron Brenton even has the same bleating used by islamists off down pat.

Our poor bwothers and sisters are being killed in Sywia...so I have to kill some innocent people and I want you to do the same thing. Bwaaaaaaaaa.
White girls have been waped in Wotherham...so I have to kill some innocent people and I want you to do the same thing. Bwaaaaaaaa.

It really is pathetic how these fools seek to justify their actions. On all sides.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking like Jonathan Ross?
 

Back
Top