Mass shooting in New Zealand - twitter account of shooter (99.9999% him) still open

[Derec]

And with all of the about immigration, Pew actually projects that by 2050 Europe will only have about 10% of its population Muslim and the US will only be about 2.1%.

That is more than a doubling of population share in mere 30 years. And since Muslims tend to aggregate in major cities, Berlin, Paris and London will be majority Muslim by then.

And, of course, in America it's still extremist white guys that are the biggest problem:

Always blame whitey!

White supremacists and other far-right extremists have killed far more people since Sept. 11, 2001, than any other category of domestic extremist. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism has reported that 71 percent of the extremist-related fatalities in the United States between 2008 and 2017 were committed by members of the far right or white-supremacist movements.

That is about equal to the white population share. But note that they are careful to exclude 9-11 in order to get the result they want.

Islamic extremists were responsible for just 26 percent.

Just 26%? Muslims are 0.9% of US population. That means that Muslims are greatly over-represented when it comes to terrorism. If Muslims were no more prone to terrorism, you would expect only 0.9% of terrorist attacks to be committed by Muslims. But we see almost 30x as much!

Muslim extremists committed just seven attacks.

Again, that ignores that Muslims are 0.9% of the population.

Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?

 

[bilby]

I think we all need to expect islamic terrorists retaliating by attacking some church somewhere.

I think you need to reconsider this moronic statement. But neither seems like a plausible occurrence.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we all need to expect islamic terrorists retaliating by attacking some church somewhere.

As if they needed an excuse.
Egyptian military court sentences 17 people to death over church bombings

By the way, why is it not politically correct to identify Islamic terrorism as Islamic, but it's perfectly PC to harp on the Christchurch shooter being white?

I should have specified more - "church somewhere in the West"

No, you should have reconsidered your dumb post altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

Did these guys target these mosques because it was a good place to corner arabs or muslims? I kindof wonder if these isn't religious bigotry.

Yeah. Because writing crazy stuff all over your guns is a sign of bigotry rather than insanity.

 

[bilby]

In case anyone hasn't noticed, I have completely run out of patience with the right-wing authoritarian cheer squad who are so fucking gleeful about this horrific incident.

You are all part of the problem, and you all need to fuck right off with your fake reasonableness and your sidelong support for neo-fascism.

The person who pulled the trigger in this massacre was insane. The people who supported and encouraged his insanity - including Donald Trump, Scott Morrison, Fraser Anning, Rupert Murdoch, and several posters on this thread, are the ones who are guilty.

The law might not hold you cunts responsible, but I fucking do.

 

[Arctish]

Quote an article that only refers to the guy as white and doesn't mention how that figures into his ideology and motive for murdering people at prayer in a mosque.

I was thinking more of this thread, where Toni was going on about him being blonde and blue eyed.

Right then.

I call bullshit on your pathetic attempt to portray the reports that the white supremacist, white separatist mass murdering terrorist was a white guy as some kind of PC injustice against whites.

Bullshit, Derec.

 

[Arctish]

Australia cancels Milo Yiannopoulos's visa after Christchurch comments

Haters gonna hate.

 

[barbos]

I think you need to reconsider this moronic statement. But neither seems like a plausible occurrence.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we all need to expect islamic terrorists retaliating by attacking some church somewhere.

As if they needed an excuse.
Egyptian military court sentences 17 people to death over church bombings

By the way, why is it not politically correct to identify Islamic terrorism as Islamic, but it's perfectly PC to harp on the Christchurch shooter being white?

I should have specified more - "church somewhere in the West"

No, you should have reconsidered your dumb post altogether.

Are you OK?

 

[bilby]

 

[Angry Floof]

In case anyone hasn't noticed, I have completely run out of patience with the right-wing authoritarian cheer squad who are so fucking gleeful about this horrific incident.

You are all part of the problem, and you all need to fuck right off with your fake reasonableness and your sidelong support for neo-fascism.

The person who pulled the trigger in this massacre was insane. The people who supported and encouraged his insanity - including Donald Trump, Scott Morrison, Fraser Anning, Rupert Murdoch, and several posters on this thread, are the ones who are guilty.

The law might not hold you cunts responsible, but I fucking do.

So do I.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well there you have it folks. It's all identity politics. Can we now finally all recognize that as a bad thing and refocus society on the individual?

Says the guy who praised Duterte.

What does this odd claim have to do with identity politics vs focus on the individual? You quoted my text for no reason?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I know a few of us here are anti-religion, and I was at one time as well. Eventually I realized that religion has nothing to do with this stuff, it’s all political.

It’s as simple as this: Some middle eastern people get radicalized when you bomb the snot out of them, remove their wealth, destroy their opportunity, and crush their hope. Any group of people would react the same.

Seems that we have walked opposite paths.
I used to believe what you wrote here. Until I looked deeper into it and realized that many religious terrorists do not come from being poor orphans, and that a much higher percentage of people exposed to these hateful versions of religion become murderous than those who are equally impoverished and abused but not exposed to these hateful versions of religion.

The religious influence really is a thing, just as political influence is. It's not all explicable just by abuse or bombing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What happened in New Zealand wasn't about Muslims. it was about White Supremacy and the hatred that such individuals have towards those who are different from themselves. People like the shooter don't necessarily attack Muslims. They have attacked Jewish people and Black people, often in their houses of worship, which is probably because that makes them very easy targets. Muslims, btw, have been in New Zealand since the 1700s and the only reason there has been an uptick in recent years is due to the violence and horror in places like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyone who thinks these people are trying to instill Sharia law are simply delusional. The Muslims in NZ aren't the problem anymore than the Muslims in the US are a problem. I've met several Muslims and they aren't scary at all. It's the white nationalists that scare the shit out of me, and I'm white!


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-gunman-christchurch.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

One of the goals of his bloodshed, he wrote, was to “agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.” He said he wanted to “incite violence, retaliation and further divide.”

The manifesto, the harrowing video and what appear to be the gunman’s social media posts feature typical white nationalist rhetoric with layers upon layers of irony and meta jokes, making it difficult to parse what is genuine and what he just thought was funny.

The gunman seems to have a significant interest in history — at least, the parts that fit into a white nationalist narrative. On his weapons, he wrote the names of centuries-old military leaders who led battles against largely nonwhite forces, along with the names of men who recently carried out mass shootings of Jews and Muslims.

The manifesto, steeped in anti-Muslim sentiment, refers to nonwhites as “invaders” who threaten to “replace” white people. The author says he used guns instead of other weapons because he wanted the United States to tear itself apart arguing over gun laws.

His choice of language, and the specific memes he referred to, suggest a deep connection to the far-right online community. The link to the livestreamed video was first posted to the /pol/ forum of 8chan, a notorious far-right space, where the gunman was hailed as a hero after the shooting.

I also read that this gunman was influenced by some racist French asshole who had written a book about how white people were being replaced by people with darker skin. Sound familiar? White supremacy that leads to terrorism is the problem here, not Muslims who were only minding their own business and attending their own religious services.

Quoted this entire post because it sums up what is happening here perfectly. Well said.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That is more than a doubling of population share in mere 30 years.

And would still only represent 2.1% of our (the US's) population.

And since Muslims tend to aggregate in major cities, Berlin, Paris and London will be majority Muslim by then.

So?

Always blame whitey!

We're always to blame and asswipes always try to obscure that fact, so it's only fair and balanced.

White supremacists and other far-right extremists have killed far more people since Sept. 11, 2001, than any other category of domestic extremist. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism has reported that 71 percent of the extremist-related fatalities in the United States between 2008 and 2017 were committed by members of the far right or white-supremacist movements.

That is about equal to the white population share. But note that they are careful to exclude 9-11 in order to get the result they want.

Yeah, do you really want to escalate to State-sponsored terrorism, because then you'd have to figure in the millions of completely innocent people we maimed or murdered in Iraq in response (not to mention Afghanistan) and pretty much every act of terrorism our country has inflicted on other countries under the euphemism of "war" since at least WWII (and even then we have significant blood still on our hands in regard to the unnecessary use of two--count 'em--two atomic bombs, not to mention the far worse conventional bombing we did in Japan and Germany).

The illegal carpet bombing of Cambodia (not to mention the "legal" carpet bombing of Vietnam in general) was literally an act of terrorism by design, with Nixon infamously told Haldeman about his "Madman Theory":

I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry and he has his hand on the nuclear button and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.

You should be familiar with it, since it's evidently been co-opted by Trump.

Islamic extremists were responsible for just 26 percent.

Just 26%?

Yep.

Muslims are 0.9% of US population.

Actually, it's more like 1.1%.

That means that Muslims are greatly over-represented when it comes to terrorism.

Yeah, no. White supremacists/extremists make up only about 2.8% of the US population yet from their ranks they commit 71% of the crimes we're discussing.

But, of course, not every member of such populations commit violent acts, so we're really talking about a handful of people from one group and a handful of people from another commiting all of those crimes. Which handful is the larger?

If Muslims were no more prone to terrorism, you would expect only 0.9% of terrorist attacks to be committed by Muslims.

So, by that bizarre logic, what can we conclude about white supremacists? The Islamist extremists supposedly have an agenda; they "hate our freedoms" (but of course are really primarily retaliating against our foreign policy for the past fifty years at least).

What's the agenda for whitey? Not enough white love? They hate our freedom fries?

Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?

Indeed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That means that Muslims are greatly over-represented when it comes to terrorism.

Yeah, no. White supremacists/extremists make up only about 2.8% of the US population yet from their ranks they commit 71% of the crimes we're discussing.

Do you realize that one can find both white supremacism and Islamism alarming the same time? Pointing at the other doesn't make either of these good.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not going to go back and quote all of what Derec has posted, but I think Derec has things backwards. We do talk about Islamic extremists in America when an Islamic extremist carries out a violent attack. The problem is that we rarely if ever talk about white supremacy when a white maniac carries out a violent attack on black people or Jewish people or Muslims. That is the current problem that we have. The nation is in denial regarding the violence and terrorism carried out by white nationalists. How many times do you hear the word "terrorism" when a violent attack is committed by a white nationalist? Just about never! It's time we took the threat of white nationalism seriously.

And nobody is defending organizations that promote stupid hateful concepts like "all white people must go". But some of those hateful organizations have existed for decades yet I can't remember any of them organizing a massive slaughter of white people. Those organizations have already been called out for their hateful rhetoric, but we're not here discussing them. We're here discussing the rising threat of white nationalism.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That means that Muslims are greatly over-represented when it comes to terrorism.

Yeah, no. White supremacists/extremists make up only about 2.8% of the US population yet from their ranks they commit 71% of the crimes we're discussing.

Do you realize that one can find both white supremacism and Islamism alarming the same time? Pointing at the other doesn't make either of these good.

Which is why I posted to counter Derec's one-sided post and provide proper perspective.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And nobody is defending organizations that promote stupid hateful concepts like "all white people must go". But some of those hateful organizations have existed for decades yet I can't remember any of them organizing a massive slaughter of white people. Those organizations have already been called out for their hateful rhetoric, but we're not here discussing them. We're here discussing the rising threat of white nationalism.

I think the point is that the former feeds and grows the latter, not that the former is as bad as the latter.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do you realize that one can find both white supremacism and Islamism alarming the same time? Pointing at the other doesn't make either of these good.

Which is why I posted to counter Derec's one-sided post and provide proper perspective.

Except it doesn't. Not if Derec simply agrees with you that white supremacists are bad. Don't you think he will agree that they are? Countering Derecs points here would mean absolving Islamism, not chastising something else just as bad or worse.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Gaining proper perspective is imperative. Here's a snippet from an excellent piece published by Foreign Policy:

A study released last year by consulting firm 416Labs showed that over 25 years of coverage and headlines, the portrayal of Islam and Muslims in the New York Times was more negative than cancer, alcohol, and cocaine. The study found there are no positive words in the top 25 associations with Islam and Muslims, and only 8 percent of headlines about those subjects carried a positive connotation. Cancer fared better at 17 percent.

That's the supposedly "failing" New York Times, that is likewise supposed to be part of the "left wing media" no less.

The FP piece continues:

All this shapes America’s collective subconscious and helps normalize racist attitudes. And while Trump’s blunt racism has gotten the most attention, the recent campaign abounds with examples of innuendos and casual bigotry.

In January, during a Republican primary debate, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about his support for profiling of Muslims to detect terrorist plots, in the context of the San Bernardino attack that had taken place in December. When Christie pushed back, indicating there were other ways of detecting a plot in the making, Kelly insisted.

“Neighbors said they saw men going in and out of the garage. They saw packages being delivered. They saw Muslims, and they did not think that was enough to call the cops. Do you?” she asked.

With just this phrase — “they saw Muslims” — Kelly suggested Muslims are somehow instantly recognizable and suspicious. They don’t fit in. They’re not your teacher, doctor, grocer, or lawyer. They may be Americans, but they are the “other.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a woman confronted GOP nominee Sen. John McCain during a town hall, telling him she feared she couldn’t trust then-Sen. Barack Obama because “I have read about him, and … he’s an Arab.”

McCain grabbed the microphone to shut her down and said, “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

McCain’s response was applauded as a decent pushback against bigotry. But very few people pointed out that McCain’s response left hanging the suggestion that being an Arab and being a decent family man are somehow mutually exclusive.

One Republican did push back. “The correct answer is he’s not a Muslim; he’s a Christian,” said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as he endorsed Obama in 2008. “But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no.”

How did the woman who asked McCain that question get the idea that Arabs were untrustworthy in the first place? It’s not only American politicians and the news media that perpetuate these stereotypes; it’s also ingrained in popular culture. Jack Shaheen, author of the book Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, found in the roughly 1,000 films he studied, Arabs were depicted in a stereotypical or negative light in 932, typically as terrorists, shady sheikhs, or similarly untrustworthy characters. Only 12 films painted Arabs in a positive way, and 56 had a neutral depiction of Arabs.

In 2014, the film American Sniper about the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle drew record audiences — but also heavy criticism for glossing over the politics of the war in Iraq and glorifying the killing of Arabs. Kyle is a hero, credited as the most lethal sniper in American history, but in his memoir, he also bragged repeatedly about killing “savages” during his time in Iraq. In the film, Iraqis, even women and children, are devoid of humanity. The release of the film triggered a deluge of social media hate and threats against Muslims and Arabs. “American Sniper makes me wanna go shoot some fuckin Arabs,” tweeted one user, @dezmondharmon.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The study found there are no positive words in the top 25 associations with Islam and Muslims, and only 8 percent of headlines about those subjects carried a positive connotation. Cancer fared better at 17 percent.

17% of headlines on cancer say cancer is more good than bad? Really?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Christchurch, the White Victim Complex and Savage Capitalism

Interesting.