[QatzelOk]

One of the interesting aspects of this attack is the desperate efforts of state actors to suppress footage of the attack. In the US, that means quashing the first amendment. In the quasi-British Empire it means reminding Kiwis and Aussies that they don't actually have any constitutional freedom of speech.

It also means that it's probably yet another false flag, attributed to the oligarchy's flavor-of-the-week, instead of towards our corporate governance and its relentless war propaganda.

[skinster]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Now you're just flailing.

Reasserting baseless claims doesn't make them true or less hyperbolic.

Since you ignored most of my other examples, I will wait for you to address them before I decide to retract anything.

[...]

I already did you a favour by addressing some of your examples, since none of them had any merit.

No one argued that there was a Muslim ban.

You did.

This feels a bit like therapy session where I'm the therapist who is supposed to listen to your grievance and anger at US policy and military operations, whereas you started this conversation with me by making the specific claim that it is easy to get majority support for genocide and targeting civilians. You clearly don't want to defend the actual claim but rather want to get your misgivings off your chest. And while this may make you feel better, it's not why I'm participating in this discussion or more generally on this board.

Hrmmm... I've never thought of New Zealand as diverse.

It is.


It also has one of the highest per capita immigration rates and foreign-born populations worldwide.

[Sivad]

Reasserting baseless claims doesn't make them true or less hyperbolic.

Asserting a claim is baseless and hyperbolic doesn't make it baseless and hyperbolic. You'd have to provide some reasoning to back up your assertions or you're just pulling a Drlee.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Asserting a claim is baseless and hyperbolic doesn't make them baseless and hyperbolic. You'd have to provide some reasoning to back up your assertions or you're just pulling a Drlee.

When I'm getting reasoning from you, as opposed to preachy diatribes, I'll respond with reasoning.

[Sivad]

When I'm getting reasoning from you, as opposed to preachy diatribes, I'll respond with reasoning.

Your only alternatives to obtuse denial are to either try to argue those wars were justified or to just come off it. And since arguing for the wars isn't likely to go very well for you and you can't come off it because Western exceptionalism undergirds your entire worldview, all you can do is go deliberately obtuse and try to bluff your way out of it with baseless assertions of hyperbole. That's some mighty weak shit there, Kaiser.

[Suntzu]

Reasserting baseless claims doesn't make them true or less hyperbolic.


I already did you a favour by addressing some of your examples, since none of them had any merit.


You did.

This feels a bit like therapy session where I'm the therapist who is supposed to listen to your grievance and anger at US policy and military operations, whereas you started this conversation with me by making the specific claim that it is easy to get majority support for genocide and targeting civilians. You clearly don't want to defend the actual claim but rather want to get your misgivings off your chest. And while this may make you feel better, it's not why I'm participating in this discussion or more generally on this board.


It is.


It also has one of the highest per capita immigration rates and foreign-born populations worldwide.

Muslim are around 1%.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Your only alternatives to obtuse denial are to either try to argue those wars were justified or to just come off it. And since arguing for the wars isn't likely to go very well for you and you can't come off it because Western exceptionalism undergirds your entire worldview, all you can do is go deliberately obtuse and try to bluff your way out of it with baseless assertions of hyperbole. That's some mighty weak shit there, Kaiser.

So it's more preaching then.

There's nothing obtuse about my argument that western wars would look completely different if western populations were as bloodthirsty as you assert. This is my last attempt in this thread to try and take you seriously, and I'm not going to respond in a reasonable manner again if you keep venting your anger rather than engaging with what I'm saying. I have better things to do.

[Pants-of-dog]

Reasserting baseless claims doesn't make them true or less hyperbolic.

I already did you a favour by addressing some of your examples, since none of them had any merit.

This made me smile.

I am happy you congratulate yourself for dismissing my argument after only dealing with one of my examples.

You did.

No, I never argued there was a Muslim ban.

If I did, please quote it.

The widespread accpetance and supoort for Trump’s failed ban is a clear indication for widespread Islamophobia.

As for massacres and mass killings, the US government definitely has no problem with that. And if they decided to call the mass killing a military operation, the public would be fine with that. Like they were fine with other times when US military forces deliberately targeted civilians and killed thousands.

[Deutschmania]

I believe they will accept Christ for their salvation.

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
(Zechariah 12:10 KJV)

And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.
(Zechariah 13:8-9 KJV)

HalleluYah

. Just in case you were being serious , and not simply a po , here is a response to this .

. ,

Baruch Ha Shem .

[skinster]

Who's to blame for the rise of Islamophobic terrorist attacks?
After the terrorist attack in Christchurch and now the attacks on Birmingham mosques, Shabbir Lakha finds that it's leading politicians and the media fuelling Islamophobia

On Wednesday night, less than a week after the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, five mosques in Birmingham were attacked, at least one of which had its windows smashed by a sledgehammer. This series of attacks comes in the wake of a sharp increase in Islamophobic hate crimes since Christchurch.

In the last week, a Muslim man was attacked with a blunt weapon outside a mosque in East London, a Muslim taxi driver in Rochdale was abused with reference to Christchurch, the Imam of the mosque in Finsbury Park that faced a terrorist attack on 2017 was abused on a bus and later spat at by a cyclist, a 19-year-old southern European man was stabbed “due to his ethnic appearance” in Surrey which police believe was a far-right “terrorist event”, and now the Birmingham mosque attacks.

There is a growing climate of fear among Muslims in Western countries since the terrorist attack in New Zealand. The attack was well organised and the attacker wrote a 73-page manifesto in which he explained in detail his motivations and actions. His conspiracy theories of invasion by Muslim immigrants can be found plainly in the words of people like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins who are regularly given a platform in the mainstream media – but also in thinly veiled comments made by leading politicians.

The terrorist said he took inspiration from Anders Breivik who orchestrated a similar terrorist attack on young socialists in Oslo in 2011, and praised Donald Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity”. It’s unsurprising that his words were incredibly similar to those of the terrorist that attacked a synagogue in Pittsburgh just a few months ago, who blamed Jews for apparently funding a Muslim invasion and was incited by Trump’s anti-Soros and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

When the motivations for such barbaric and targeted attacks are in plain sight, is it any surprise that Muslims in Britain are scared? It’s why I have zero time for the empty words of our world leaders after Christchurch.

Donald Trump condemning the Christchurch terrorist after hiring Steve Bannon as his right hand man, who imposed a Muslim Ban as one of his first actions as President, who told stories at his rallies of a General killing Muslim terrorists with bullets dipped in pig's blood and who refused to condemn neo-Nazis that killed Heather Heyer, is beyond disingenuous.

And it’s not that different over here. After the Christchurch attack, Theresa May said:

“There can be no place in our societies for the vile ideology that drives and incites hatred and fear.”

The same Theresa May, who as Home Secretary sent “Go Home” vans around the country, who authored the Hostile Environment, who expanded and toughened up counter-terrorism legislation which has overwhelmingly targeted the Muslim community, who joined other Conservative politicians in the now thoroughly disproved Birmingham Trojan-Horse affair. The list goes on.

The Conservative Party have just suspended 25 people after years of complaints and stacks of evidence of overtly Islamophobic, antisemitic and anti-black racism throughout Tory ranks. But how could they truly take racism seriously without expelling half their MPs and large parts of their membership?

Boris Johnson in 2005 said that “Islam is the problem” and called Islamophobia a “natural reaction”, and last year compared Muslim women that wear the burka to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”. None of this, nor the reams of racist comments he’s made over the years, were a barrier to him being appointed Foreign Secretary, and then not being sacked regardless of what he said.

And who can forget Zac Goldsmith’s openly Islamophobic 2016 London Mayoral campaign? The one where he wrote in the Daily Mail that if people voted for Sadiq Khan, they would be giving the keys to London to “friends of terrorists” next to a picture of a blown up bus from 7/7 – something David Cameron then repeated from the Despatch box in the House of Commons. Goldsmith piped up again earlier this week to condemn the Labour Party for adopting the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, which he said was written by supporters of Islamism and compared anti-Islamophobia organisation MEND to the BNP.

So while some politicians and commentators, forced to talk about Islamophobia after Christchurch, have decided to explain Islamophobia and far right extremism as a product of social media, the truth is that it comes straight from the top. Yes, the likes of Tommy Robinson and groups like Britain First have used social media to push their hate-filled message, but it remains without a doubt that without the same ideas being floated by mainstream politicians (or in the case of Donald Trump, directly retweeting them), without the media and institutions like the Oxford Union giving platforms to far right extremists, and without the right wing press consistently producing targeted and often false stories about Muslims, immigrants and ethnic minorities, these ideas would not have nearly as much purchase as they do, with or without social media.

Let’s not forget people like Rupert Murdoch, owner of a large chunk of the world’s media, who have blamed all Muslims for terrorism, like in 2015 when he said “Maybe most Moslems peaceful [sic], but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible”.

And let’s not discount the role of people like Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, who has said that Islamophobia isn’t real, that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board” and that the solution to terrorism is “less Islam” and “less Muslims”, who is among the architects of Britain’s counterterrorism strategy and whose think tanks produces reports that are used and cited by the government.

Across Europe, leaders have proposed and supported policies banning mosques, minarets, burkas and burkinis; they have defended policies letting refugees drown in the Mediterranean or rot in squalid camps in Turkey; they have justified their wars of aggression in Muslim countries by promoting a ‘clash of civilisations’ rhetoric and by painting terrorism as a Muslim problem.

So I, for one, will not be taking the empty words and crocodile tears of these leaders seriously. Combating Islamophobia necessarily means taking on the state and the media. It can only be done by a movement that brings together Muslim communities, anti-racist activists and the breadth of the labour movement with a bold, coordinated and explicit campaign against Islamophobia, and against the wars and austerity that are used to drive it by the establishment and the far right.
https://www.counterfire.org/articles/op ... qus_thread

[Hindsite]

. Just in case you were being serious , and not simply a po , here is a response to this . Baruch Ha Shem .

Yeah, I know they have a lot of responses because they do not believe God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Jewish Rabbi is obviously not going to admit the Christians are correct because they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. They will try to explain away the gospel of Christ for it is foolishness to them because they have been blinded in understanding until all the Gentiles have come in.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
(Romans 11:25 KJV)


Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
(John 12:39-40 KJV)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(Revelation 1:7-8 KJV)

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
(1 Corinthians 4:5 KJV)

Jesus is all over the Old Testament: A Study in Typology

Jesus in the Old Testament

Did Jesus Appear in the Old Testament? (Melchizedek Mystery REVEALED!)

Evidence Jesus is The Messiah (Jonah Prophecy Revealed)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This made me smile. I am happy you congratulate yourself for dismissing my argument after only dealing with one of my examples.

No, I never argued there was a Muslim ban. If I did, please quote it. The widespread accpetance and supoort for Trump’s failed ban is a clear indication for widespread Islamophobia.

I didn't only deal with one example, and you did claim there was a Muslim ban (you literally wrote "Trump's Muslim ban" in your first response to me ).

As for massacres and mass killings, the US government definitely has no problem with that. And if they decided to call the mass killing a military operation, the public would be fine with that. Like they were fine with other times when US military forces deliberately targeted civilians and killed thousands.

There's no targeting of civilians, there's no war against Muslims, there's no support for genocide, and it's not easy to get majorities to support any of it. Again, western wars and military operations would look very different if your claims were true.

----------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, one NZ publishing house no longer sells Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life because it believes it would be wrong to support the author in light of the Christchurch attack. They are getting lots of attention for this decision, which is no doubt their objective, and the terrorist also gets what he wants.

And more about what's really important: Christchurch terror attack: Corrections denies only white guards watching alleged gunman

[redcarpet]

If the Right TRULY want to avoid capability for the attack there are a number of easy U-turns they can announce or implement. A number aren't policy U-turns either (which are of course off the table for them). Propaganda soundbites that can easily be argued to contribute to crimes like this that can be dropped!

A really big one is 'Cultural Marxism'(or just railing against 'Political Correctness'). Remember it's a Nazi anti-Semitic conspiracy theory used by the Nazis in the 1932 & '33 German elections. There's no truth too it, each part of it is false. 1. New ideas, nothing 'new' was decided or declared. 2. Most/all participants were Jews. False, only some attendees were (and not shocking Jews are mostly left-wing right up to today If you're in a persecuted minority only left-wing economic policies are beneficial). 3 The meetings at Frankfurt were linked to the Jewish bankers that caused the 1929 crash & the Great Depression. False, linking one anti-Jewish Nazi conspiracy theory to another. What few Jews that got into banks were pretty low ranking, okay? Bankers don't take orders or 'suggestions' from clerks or tellers.

A non-Nazi and non anti-Semite wouldn't dream of giving a speech or statement, or online forum post, peddling this crap. Except to denounce it.

I doubt it'll be dropped though. Certainly the U.S Right love it, not just the Alt-Right on the fringes, but the mainstream Right-wing from Fox News to the Republican Party complain about it.

[Rich]

Our thought does not derive from the Nazis. Just because the Nazis believed in round earth doesn't make it flat. Cultural Marxism is not a plot by Jewish supremacists. I repeat Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy of some secret Jewish committee. If you want to debate with Nazi idiots fine go ahead, but in that case do not pretend you are arguing with us.

Actually Cultural Marxism can be seen as a confluence of three things.

1 It is a specific theory and world view originating in the Frankfurt school and developing through Critical theory and post modernism on to oppression theory and intersectionality.

2 It is a Marxist strategy prefigured by Lenin's orientation towards Imperialism rather than Capitalism from late 1914. It was heralded by the likes of Gramsci and Lukacs. Gramsci was not that influential at the time, being in prison, but his ideological war of position, well described the change of strategy of the international communist movement, in response to the defeat / exhaustion of the revolutionary wave in Europe in 1923. It became ever more explicit in the increasing focus on race and third world nationalisms by the international Communist movement post second world war. From the late sixties, with third wave Marxism, we start to see a focus of many Trotskyists, Maoists and Euro communists on questions of gender and sexuality. This was all the while the Soviet Union and Cuba continued to criminalise homosexuality. Marxists are prone to protest their working classness and their complete difference from what they call petit bourgeois ideologies, but in practice its often very difficult to tell them apart.

3 It is an application of Marx's dictum to mass higher education.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

Vast numbers of students in the West go to university to study arts and social science courses, that have no practical use. Humans have a need to believe that they contribute to society. Students don't go to university to learn the truth about the world, they go to learn the best propaganda, whether truth or lies necessary for the Manichean struggle. The evil in that struggle can be Capitalism, Imperialism or some combination of Whiteness, Patriarchy, heteronormativity, transphobia and able-bodiedness.

[SolarCross]

It was one unfortunate side effect of the rising tide of doubt in god that otherwise benign Christians and Jews in their doubt and despair fell into moronic and pathological cults like marxism and its spin off. Jews look more visible in the marxist herd but only because they have the funny habit of continuing to identify and be identified as "jewish" when they reject the religion that makes one jewish while a Christian who rejects Christianity doesn't continue to call himself a Christian.

-------

@redcarpet The left are the cause of the rise of the white identitarians. Joe Average is generally just a soft nationalist, meaning he thinks of himself as British or Polish or American or whatever but unless there is war on or something he doesn't think about it too much, he does not see himself as white nationalist because "white" is just too big a group to be really connected to in its entirety. But then if you have a bunch of blue haired crazies screaming about killing white babies and how whites are the source of true evil, Joe Average will discover to his shock when he looks in the mirror that those blue haired crazies are literally talking about his own good self. The natural response for when a tribe is attacked is to rally together and so Joe Average is provoked to see white nationalism as a thing and thing for him just out self-defence. I don't think the mainstream has been quite provoked that far because the mainstream are not that aware of the rhetoric being levied, so far it is just a few odd balls who stumbled on the cess pits of SJWism on the internet but clearly the cultural marxists are hoping to create a civil war in the west and are quite willing to use racialist rhetoric to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't only deal with one example,

You only examined the argument about Nazi Germany.

You ignored the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden.

You ignored the Wounded Knee massacre.

and you did claim there was a Muslim ban (you literally wrote "Trump's Muslim ban" in your first response to me ).

Yes, I did write that, and if I had written “There was a” before that, you would be correct about my claim.

Now, Trump proposed a Muslim ban.

There was widespread acceptance of it.

This indicates widespread Islamophobia.

There's no targeting of civilians,

Shock and awe campaigns are indiscriminate. They are meant to create widespread destruction, and becuase of this, it is impossible to avoid killing civilians. So, civilians are deliberately killed when US forces decide to engage in these.

there's no war against Muslims,

Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon.

there's no support for genocide, and it's not easy to get majorities to support any of it.

White man’s burden is an example of a widepsread rationalisation for imperialism and colonialism which involved genocide. So yes, there are examples in recent western history of support for genocide.

Again, western wars and military operations would look very different if your claims were true.

And let us not forget that the US still employs people who have been known to aid and abt in massacres of innocents, and they are not only not in jail, but collecting a paycheque.

Meanwhile, one NZ publishing house no longer sells Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life because it believes it would be wrong to support the author in light of the Christchurch attack. They are getting lots of attention for this decision, which is no doubt their objective, and the terrorist also gets what he wants.

The killer wanted JP’s book banned?

And more about what's really important: Christchurch terror attack: Corrections denies only white guards watching alleged gunman

Why would anyone claim he was only being watched by white guards?

[redcarpet]

Our thought does not derive from the Nazis. Just because the Nazis believed in round earth doesn't make it flat. Cultural Marxism is not a plot by Jewish supremacists. I repeat Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy of some secret Jewish committee. If you want to debate with Nazi idiots fine go ahead, but in that case do not pretend you are arguing with us.

The meetings did happen, the trouble is 'Nazi idiots' like to whip it up, just as the Nazis did in the 1932 & '33 German elections and express shock & surprise when it's pointed out to them that they're repeating election slogans from Hitler & co of that period. And we have a few 'Nazi idiots' on this forum. I'm not pointing at you, fear not, you've got a brain as you repeatedly demonstrate dear sir!

[ness31]

So there’s going to be a Royal Commission into whether or not authorities were paying enough attention to the extreme right. What an excellent use of taxpayers money.

[Pants-of-dog]

In a certain sense, it is a waste of money, since it is obvious that the government should have been paying more attention to right wing terrorism than it did.