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

[repoman]

Christchurch, the White Victim Complex and Savage Capitalism

Interesting.

There is this:





His Twitter account had a lot of these Black Suns on it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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?

That's a weird strawman to stuff. Who said anything about a newspaper headline claiming anything like "Cancer is More Good Than Bad"??

Here's a link to the PDF of the study that was linked to in the piece that you could have easily researched on your own to understand its methodology: Are Muslims Collectively Responsible? A Sentiment Analysis of the New York Times.

Since clicking on links seems to be too big of a burden for some, here are the highlights:

We carried out a quantitative analysis using a large corpus of data from the NYT covering the period 1990 - 2014. Based on NYT headlines we performed a sentiment analysis to identify the specific terms associated with Islam and Muslim, while simultaneously categorizing them as positive, negative or neutral. We benchmarked our queries with other topics of interest including Alcohol, Christianity, Cancer, Democrat, Republican and the New York Yankees. By doing so we are able to demonstrate a significant bias in the language associated with Islam and Muslims.
...
At the heart of our quantitative analysis lies the concept that words can have attributes in addition to their definition - the “sentiment” associated with a word. This is a natural phenomenon and readily understood by anyone who can appreciate the malleability of language. For instance, a phrase such as “stock market plunge causes devastating losses and panic” is clearly contextually more negative than the phrase “stock index decreases as a result of market correction”. While both phrases address the same subject, a reader would be able to clearly discern that the former is far more emotive and laden with negative sentiment than the latter. Hence, sentiments can range from being “negative”, “neutral” and even “positive” and a dictionary has been developed to assign such values. This enables one to apply “sentiment analysis” to a piece of text by attributing a particular value to words.

Sentiment analysis is an established methodology for examining the tone of a given text. While it is usually deployed by marketers or companies to understand product reception or reputational risk (Bort, 2012), it has also been used to analyze sentiment in news (Schumaker, Zhang, Huang & Chen, 2012).
...
Traditionally, this was often a laborious, manual exercise, requiring a review of a limited amount of textual information by hand. However, in recent years the ability to source large data sets and run queries on these sets have improved considerably – allowing for richer textual analysis spread over much larger volumes of data.
...
Our database consists of 2,667,700 articles published in the NYT print and online editions between January 1st 1990 and December 31st 2014. This large body of data covers more than two decades worth of news reporting and includes articles written by the NYT, but also the Associated Press, Reuters and many other news organizations. We obtained the data via the NYT’s open Article Search API protocol which provides metadata for all its articles. The content specifically analyzed was headlines. Headlines have been shown in several studies to leave a strong impression on the reader (Geer and Kahn, 1993). Considering the space taken by news headlines, they tend to play an important part in the framing of news items in order to create meaning and perception for the audience (Van Djik, 1988).
...
Benchmarking

To put the sentiment results of Islam into context, we applied the same analysis to a multitude of nouns. The likes of “Christian” and “Judaism” were included to serve as religious equivalents; while others such as “Democrat”, “Republican”, “Liberal” and “Conservative” represent concepts and groups of people with a political connotation. A noun like the Yankees was included since it represents a beloved baseball team hailing from the same city as the NYT. Lastly, “Alcohol”, “Cancer” and “Cocaine” represent things that are objectively destructive and therefore should have a high negative sentiment.

The benchmark of 29% seen in figure 4 represents the aggregate percentage of negative sentiment for headlines in the entire NYT corpus. While most of the terms float slightly above the benchmark, Islam stands out as the term with the highest negative sentiment among the group; beating out both alcohol and cocaine (Figure 4). Similarly, Islam is second from the bottom (with an 8% average positive sentiment rating) in headlines with positive sentiment (Figure 3). Only cocaine has a lower positive sentiment percentage at 7%.

In effect, the results demonstrate that any NYT headline focusing on Islam or Muslims will have an overwhelming tendency to be negative, in spite of the fact that both terms should be more akin to other “political” nouns such as Democrat or Republican. Instead, they exhibit more negative sentiment than cancer and cocaine – terms often associated with health risks, disease, poverty or drug related violence.

 

[Derec]

Not even Chelsea Clinton can escape the accusations of being an "Islamophobe".
At New Zealand vigil, Chelsea Clinton confronted over her criticism of Rep. Ilhan Omar

At the vigil, the New York University students said reactions [to Ilhan Omar's antisemitism] like Clinton’s “stoked” hatred of Muslims.

“This, right here, is a result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” one student told Clinton, according to a video of the confrontation. “And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep down inside. Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.”

The demands for ideological purity are getting fiercer. Any criticism of Muslims or Islam is seen as "Islamophobia" ...

 

[Derec]

With just this phrase — “they saw Muslims” — Kelly suggested Muslims are somehow instantly recognizable and suspicious. They don’t fit in.

Fundamentalist Muslims are often recognizable by their dress and for men, beard style.

They’re not your teacher, doctor, grocer, or lawyer. They may be Americans, but they are the “other.”

That very much depends. Many Muslims integrate well into countries where they live. But many others do not and instead create parallel societies, and make demands that their religion should form the basis of the law. Example UK:

Now, even without any writing identifying them as such, would you not immediately know. Is it really wrong to see people like this as "the other" and be suspicious of them?

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.

I think it's the exact opposite. The lefty Hollywoood goes out of its way to make terrorists something other than Arab/Muslim.
In the novel "Sum of all Fears" the nuclear bomb attack was perpetrated by Islamists (I believe mostly Palestinian but it has been 20 years since I read that book) working together with former East German leftists (the plot was set in early 90s). That is certainly believable and realistic, given that leftist German and Palestinian Muslim terrorists have worked together in the past, for example the 1976 El Al hijacking.
But for the movie version, they changed the bad guys to a bunch of white, right-wing South Africans in order to be politically correct.
Or take Designated Survivor, which opens with a bombing of the US Capitol building during the SOTU address, killing most of the government. The Muslim terrorists initially blamed for the attack were portrayed as innocent victims, framed for the attack by, you guessed it, a group of right-wing white guys.
I think 24 and Homeland are the only TV series realistic about international terrorism.

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.

In 2009, the film Inglorious Basterds glorified killing Germans. Or to stay with the theme of snipers, there is a movie in development about Simo Häyhä, world's deadliest sniper, who killed a bunch of Russians during the Winter War in 1939.
I guess these are fine because a movie about killing non-Muslim Europeans is politically correct.

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.

Aren't Al Qaeda and other similar groups savages? If a WWII sniper called Nazis he killed "savages" would anybody complain?

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.

And how is that different than sentiment against "Huns" in WWI or Nazis/Japs in WWII? People always dehumanize their enemies in war.

 

[Derec]

Except it doesn't. Not if Derec simply agrees with you that white supremacists are bad.

I would. White supremacists are as bad as white subpremacists, which is the term I just coined for self-hating whites (invariably on the left) who see white people as responsible for everything bad happening in the world.

 

[Derec]

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.

Who is this "we"? I hear a lot of hand wringing and "nothing to do with Islam" whenever there is an Islamist terrorist attack.

How many times do you hear the word "terrorism" when a violent attack is committed by a white nationalist? Just about never!

Just about always. Are you kidding me?

It's time we took the threat of white nationalism seriously.

I think we are.

And nobody is defending organizations that promote stupid hateful concepts like "all white people must go".

Women's march organizers have defended Farrakhan.

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.

If white nationalism is really on the rise, one of the reasons is because we can't have an honest discussion about things like mass migration. People start resenting the idea of becoming a minority in their own country when for example majority of elementary schools in Berlin, Germany are already majority Muslim because of mass migration and the fact that Muslims tend to have a lot of children.
Crazy/unhinged people might react with something like this attack, but that does not mean the issue itself is not a real one.

 

[laughing dog]

Not even Chelsea Clinton can escape the accusations of being an "Islamophobe".
At New Zealand vigil, Chelsea Clinton confronted over her criticism of Rep. Ilhan Omar

At the vigil, the New York University students said reactions [to Ilhan Omar's antisemitism] like Clinton’s “stoked” hatred of Muslims.

“This, right here, is a result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” one student told Clinton, according to a video of the confrontation. “And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep down inside. Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.”

The demands for ideological purity are getting fiercer. Any criticism of Muslims or Islam is seen as "Islamophobia" ...

And the relation of all of that to the OP is....?

 

[Arctish]

Not even Chelsea Clinton can escape the accusations of being an "Islamophobe".
At New Zealand vigil, Chelsea Clinton confronted over her criticism of Rep. Ilhan Omar

At the vigil, the New York University students said reactions [to Ilhan Omar's antisemitism] like Clinton’s “stoked” hatred of Muslims.

“This, right here, is a result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” one student told Clinton, according to a video of the confrontation. “And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep down inside. Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.”

The demands for ideological purity are getting fiercer. Any criticism of Muslims or Islam is seen as "Islamophobia" ...

You missed the point:

The former first daughter last month tweeted to her 2.4 million followers criticizing Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for comments about Israel that included what some saw as anti-Semitic stereotypes. “Co-signed as an American,” Clinton tweeted in response to a tweet condemning Omar. “We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.”
Dweik, a Muslim Palestinian, and Asaf, a Jewish Israeli American, took offense to Clinton’s reaction, particularly her reference to “as an American.” Was Clinton suggesting that she was more “an American” than Omar, a Somali refugee and one of the two first Muslim women elected to Congress?...

...Asaf said she felt Clinton’s actions were worthy of criticism, noting that she was one of the first high-profile figures to condemn Omar.

She was the one who made this a story,” Asaf said, especially by using “as an American," which Asaf saw as an “anti-immigrant trope.” "To me, when speaking of someone who is a refugee, it’s a dog whistle, it’s signaling this is a patriotic issue and that nationalism excludes people like Ilhan Omar,” she said.

Chelsea Clinton's tweet criticizing Omar for criticizing Israel can be read as an anti-Muslim anti-immigrant dog whistle, and some folks have read it that way. White supremacist, white separatist, white nationalist terrorist thugs might feel even more justified in their hate if they think that even liberals like Chelsea Clinton agree with them.

Words matter. If you're happy to support a resolution condemning anti-Semitism but won't support it just as enthusiastically it if it's amended to also condemn anti-Muslim bigotry, you're signaling support of religious bigotry even if that's not your intent. And if you have a President who bans people from entering this country simply because they're Muslim and a Congress that supports him, you can't just pretend it's not your problem when people are inspired by his example to commit mass murder. We allowed our racist bigot of a President to enshrine religious intolerance, white nationalism, and racism into our national policies and now we have to root that shit out and burn it to ash.

 

[Derec]

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

And at 1% they are already responsible for 26% of terrorism.

So?

So bilby claims that the whole idea of Islamization is a myth. You seem to concede the fact that it is happening, but do not find anything wrong with an Islamic Berlin or Paris. I do, however. And we should be able to talk openly about mass migration and Islamization without having anybody who is not toeing the "all migration is good" party line being called "xenophobe" etc. If you make dissent to migration policies politically incorrect, it will go underground and metamorphose into something ugly - ugly as in what happened in Christchurch.

Always blame whitey!

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

I suspected you of being a self-hating white person, and now I have confirmation.

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)

War is not the same as terrorism. Also, there haven't been "millions" of innocent casualties of the Iraq war. Where are you getting your data?

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%.

I guess I had not quite up to date data. They are increasing exponentially.
But 1.1 vs 0.9% doesn't change the fact that 26%>>1.1% as well.

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.

You are yet again shifting the goalposts. You are comparing white extremists with all Muslims. Or are you saying all Muslims are extremist?

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?

As a share of population, the Muslim handful is about 25 times larger.

So, by that bizarre logic,

It's not a bizarre logic, it's basic "per capita" reasoning used in statistics. If you compare two groups, you do not compare total numbers, you compare per capita numbers.
Or another example: according to FBI, blacks and whites in the US commit about the same number of murders. However, because there are ~5 times more whites than blacks in the US, the black murder rate is actually 5x higher than white murder rate.

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).

I think you in some way sympathize with the Islamsts here.

What's the agenda for whitey?

I think it differs. For some, like Tim McVeigh, it's anti-fed sentiment. For Dylan Roof it was hatred of blacks. Etc. It's not a unified ideology like Islamism.

 

[laughing dog]

And if you have a President who bans people from entering this country simply because they're Muslim and a Congress that supports him, you can't just pretend it's not your problem when people are inspired by his example to commit mass murder. We allowed our racist bigot of a President to enshrine religious intolerance, white nationalism, and racism into our national policies and now we have to root that shit out and burn it to ash.

But you forget that there are good people on both sides of this.

 

[laughing dog]

Making Muslims somehow responsible for murders of the fellow Muslims by white supremacists is hard to take seriously, especially when it comes from the "responsibility for one's choices" crowd.

 

[Derec]

Chelsea Clinton's tweet criticizing Omar for criticizing Israel can be read as an anti-Muslim anti-immigrant dog whistle,

I just rolled my eyes so hard, I think I pulled my extraoccular muscles. Thanks a lot!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Many Muslims integrate well into countries where they live.

The overwhelming majority in fact.

But many others do not and instead create parallel societies, and make demands that their religion should form the basis of the law.

You just described the Bible Belt and the constant struggle in regard to separation of Church and State.

Now, even without any writing identifying them as such, would you not immediately know. Is it really wrong to see people like this as "the other" and be suspicious of them?

Well, you do have a point:



If only there were some common surface element we could use to profile them with:



I just can't put my finger on it. Wait, is that Shia LaBeouf?

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.

I think it's the exact opposite.

And to illustrate your claim you'll provide a few instances where "lefty Hollywood" changed some things while ignoring the facts presented above showing the in the overwhelming majority of the cases (932 times out 1,000 to be exact), that wasn't the case.

So how would that be the "exact opposite"? All you did, essentially, was look to the 68 or so exceptions and claimed that represents an "exact opposite."

I think 24 and Homeland are the only TV series realistic about international terrorism.

Interesting, considering that Homeland was created by two of the main writers for 24 and at least one critic notes that it acts a sort of apology for the hack stereotypes replete in 24.

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.

In 2009, the film Inglorious Basterds glorified killing Germans.

First of all, American Sniper was billed as "a thoughtful character study" of a real person intended to show what real life veterans actually go through, not a fictional historical revisionist dark comedy fantasy (based loosely on a previous 1978 film) and shot by a notorious pulp fiction (pun intended) filmmaker like Tarantino.

Second, it's not a film glorifying the killing of Germans; it's a film glorifying the killing of Hitler primarily and Nazis secondarily--i.e., a clearly defined military combatant--that also included a lengthy scene in a bar where it became very personal and all about human beings with kids and actresses and war-weary spies and the like killing each other up close and personal, but still all in uniforms.

In American Sniper, there were no clearly defined uniforms--no clearly defined enemies--which is why you posted pictures that make it seem as if there are clearly defined uniforms and talk about beards, ffs and think only in terms of TV shows like 24 and Homeland (ironically missing the fact that the way in which the white protagonist in Homeland was turned into a terrorist asset was not via torture, but by trust, compassion and being told the truth, albeit from a particular viewpoint, which is precisely what our military intelligence experts actually do to turn our own assets instead of torture, which is what the Bush administration used not to get information--as it doesn't work to get actionable information--but to spread terror).

And lastly, did you choose those two films because of this?

[Seth] Rogen compared the movie with a Nazi propaganda movie that appears at the end of Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.”

Just curious.

I guess these are fine because a movie about killing non-Muslim Europeans is politically correct.

No, they are "fine" because they are false equivalences in regard to the study we're talking about that found a significant and clear stereotypical bias in the overwhelming majority of such films. Once again, you point to a handful of exceptions in a blatant attempt to falsely equate them with the majority that overwhelm them in regard to their effect on a mainstream audience.

Iow, you want to focus on 5% to avoid focus on 95%. It's pathetic, disingenuous and transparent.

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.

Aren't Al Qaeda and other similar groups savages?

No one in Iraq were Al Qaeda, which is rather the point. As one reviewer noted:

Sadly, whatever complexity might be at work in Kyle or the film is lost against a sea of Orientalism and racism. The film opens with the foreboding (as opposed to the beautiful) sound of the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, and with that, the tone is set for the menacing Muslim enemy to haunt the screen. Lots of Iraqi Muslims make their way into this film, but almost every woman, man and child that we see is angry, violent and bloodthirsty. We see Muslims as Kyle seems them — as “savages,” as demonic, as unworthy of our compassion, as lacking in humanity. Their main purpose is to provide Kyle with targets to shoot.

If a WWII sniper called Nazis he killed "savages" would anybody complain?

Once again, Nazis were our enemies. Iraqis were not. They have been doing nothing more than defending themselves from an amoral invasion and occupation that had zero to do with Al Qaeda.

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.

And how is that different than sentiment against "Huns" in WWI or Nazis/Japs in WWII? People always dehumanize their enemies in war.

Once again, Nazis and "Japs" were in fact our enemies that we had officially declared war upon. There never was a war declared on Iraqis; there was only the AUMF that was limited to regime change--i.e., getting rid of Hussein--and then only in conjunction with UN Resolutions. It then became an occupation due to our fuckup and escalated from there.

Iow, WE are entirely at fault and were the evil occupying force that the Iraqi citizens were in perfect justifiable position to oust by all means necessary. We were the Nazis that invaded Poland that time, capisce?

 

[repoman]

What about Danzig?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And FWIW, the god worshipped by Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship is the same deity.

Is it really? Usually that line is given by more liberal/ecumenical theists who actually believe that deity exists and can be worshiped, even if they are viewed differently. To say that they all worship the same god is to say that none of these religions has a monopoly on truth.
But us atheists view all these gods as fictional, so we can admit these deities are different while also saying that all of the religions are wrong.
But the triune god of small-o orthodox Christianity is very different than the god of rabbinic Judaism (which is in turn different from the tangible Torah god but that's a whole different issue) and is very different from Allah.

P.S.: Worshiped is spelled with one p. It's not Amazon Prime .

Same deity. It started with the Jews. Then came Jesus saying you're worshiping wrong, here's how to do it--Christianity. Then came Mohammad saying you're worshiping wrong, here's how to do it--Islam. Same deity, different prophet.

 

[Derec]

Same deity. It started with the Jews. Then came Jesus saying you're worshiping wrong, here's how to do it--Christianity. Then came Mohammad saying you're worshiping wrong, here's how to do it--Islam. Same deity, different prophet.

That's the Sunday School version of it though. Reality is much messier.

 

[atrib]

What Derec is saying is that if you allow Muslims to migrate to our country, you are to blame for senseless acts of violence committed against said immigrants.

Nobody is saying that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate. THAT would be bigoted. Over and over again, I have specified with great clarity what my position is and yet, people like you keep misrepresenting it. Immigration is not a binary switch. We do not have to choose between "let nobody in" and "let anybody in". Again, my position is:

1. Numbers of immigrants should be reasonable. No flood of mass migrants like what happened in Europe.
2. Countries should vet anybody who wishes to immigrate for criminal history and extremist views. That is not happening with this mass migration where everybody is just let in.
3. Ability to deport people who have no right to stay in the host country, or who have lost that right due to crime and/or extremist allegiances.

None of these things mean that we should not "allow Muslims to migrate to our country".

You deliberately ignored the rest of my post, and the point I making. This is what I said:

What Derec is saying is that if you allow Muslims to migrate to our country, you are to blame for senseless acts of violence committed against said immigrants. You are to blame because you did not foresee that your actions would trigger the rage of a few racist scumbags and turn them into mass murderers. When making policy decisions, one should always bow down to the tiny fraction of people in your country who are white nationalists, and be sensitive to their opinions regarding mixing of different racial bloodlines.

Does that sum up your position appropriately, or have I missed something?

You are blaming the lawmakers in NZ for the recent act of terrorism and mass murder, instead of the individuals who actually committed the crimes. It doesn't matter how many Muslims were allowed to immigrate to NZ under their immigration policy; that is not a justification to excuse mass murder. Stop trying to defend the racists who committed these crimes. Stop trying to blame others for their actions.

 

[repoman]

What is a stable ideological middle ground for a demographic supermajority to have about how good or awful they are now and their ancestors were in the past?

On one extreme is the recent Japanese Prime Minister making a point to go the Yasukuni Shrine and people denying the extent of what happened at Nanking. On the other there all of the white privilege conferences here in the U.S.

If somehow in Japanese academia there would be professors denied tenure or protested for denying ethnic Japanese privilege, what else about Japan would change along with it?

 

[Derec]

You deliberately ignored the rest of my post, and the point I making. This is what I said:

I did not. I corrected your misrepresentation of my position.

You are blaming the lawmakers in NZ for the recent act of terrorism and mass murder, instead of the individuals who actually committed the crimes. It doesn't matter how many Muslims were allowed to immigrate to NZ under their immigration policy; that is not a justification to excuse mass murder. Stop trying to defend the racists who committed these crimes. Stop trying to blame others for their actions.

Wrong! Of course the primary blame and responsibility is on the attacker himself.
But it is also wrong to discount the partial responsibility that rests on the inability to discuss things like Islam or migration policies openly. Instead, everybody opposed to the political correct orthodoxy on this is dismissed as "xenophobe" and "racist" (even though Islam is not a race). That attempt to eliminate heresy on matters of mass migration leads to shit like this.
Hell, the prime minister of New Zealand is already submitting voluntarily to Islam; she donned a fucking hijab!
Picture of Grieving New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern in Hijab After New Zealand Shooting Goes Viral

It's this kind of political correct nonsense and subservience of Western leaders to Islam that has led to this.
Instead of submitting to demands of Muslims in the West, we should instead applaud women in for example Iran who are trying to take it off!

 

[Derec]

And why is the Utrecht shooting receiving almost no attention compared to the Christchurch shooting? Could it be that it does not fit in the politically correct narrative of oppressed Muslims that the media has been pushing for decades, and especially since 9/11?

Dutch shooting: Utrecht police arrest suspect after three killed