Jump to content
The Marquis de Leech

Terrorist Attack at New Zealand mosques

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have been reading the comments on stories. They get pretty ugly.

Yes, people feel almighty and untouchable in the anonymous world of the Internet, so they radiate bluntly their hatred... I prefer to focus on the many comments supporting the victims across the planet. 

Thankfully several European media chose to not air the video of the rampage, they just displayed some photos of the place, the guy and his weapons. This "second Breivik" does not need more publicity. I hope his manifesto will be erased of the Internet, if not already done.

Crazy detail: he visited Pakistan five months ago and even loved the local food...

https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/new-zealand-christchurch-shooting-intl/h_f997c992c412bfbb5186ecd4dfc4ac1a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some increased calls for renaming the regional rugby team. It's called the Crusaders at the moment, and their image is of a knight on horseback brandishing a sword with crosses on his shield and tunic. I never thought is was a good idea to use a name synonymous with centuries of religious war between Christianity and Islam. The origin of the word is basically a term for a Christian holy war.

Probably has as much chance of being changed as the Washington Redskins.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Some increased calls for remaining the regional rugby team. It's called the Crusaders at the moment, and their image is of a knight on horseback brandishing a sword with crosses on his shield and tunic. I never thought is was a good idea to use a name synonymous with centuries of religious war between Christianity and Islam. The origin of the word is basically a term for a Christian holy war.

Probably has as much chance of being changed as the Washington Redskins.

The Crusaders were named back in the mid-1990s, back when rugby was turning professional. Islam wasn't exactly a massive issue in the 1990s, and if anything, the Western media tended to be sympathetic (Bosnia, Kosovo) - September 11th hadn't happened yet. It'd be a poor choice of name now, but at the time, it was probably one of the better Super Rugby names (Auckland Blues?), considering that imposing corporate branding like that makes my skin crawl. There's also the problem of what to replace it with (Canterbury Crusaders has alliteration and flow, and it's damn hard to come up with a resonant name for the team that evokes the area's Englishness without getting silly or coming up with an even more offensive alternative). I dare anyone to deny that, for example, the Canterbury Kakapos, is a laughable name for a rugby team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The Crusaders were named back in the mid-1990s, back when rugby was turning professional. Islam wasn't exactly a massive issue in the 1990s, and if anything, the Western media tended to be sympathetic (Bosnia, Kosovo) - September 11th hadn't happened yet. It'd be a poor choice of name now, but at the time, it was probably one of the better Super Rugby names (Auckland Blues?), considering that imposing corporate branding like that makes my skin crawl. There's also the problem of what to replace it with (Canterbury Crusaders has alliteration and flow, and it's damn hard to come up with a resonant name for the team that evokes the area's Englishness without getting silly or coming up with an even more offensive alternative). I dare anyone to deny that, for example, the Canterbury Kakapos, is a laughable name for a rugby team.  

Canterbury Cavalry or Cavaliers?  Chargers?  Could keep most of the logo.

At some point, why not get a new name?  I mean almost no one would think a sports team named, say, the “Riyadh Jihadists” would be a good idea even though it flows off the tongue.  Why is Canterbury Crusaders any different?

(And yes having a NFL team called the Washington Redskins is not good - saying this as a huge American football fan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also wanted to belatedly say that the words from both Ardern and Waleed set exactly the right tone after this attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So among the names of far right figures written on the weapons was Canadian mass murderer Alexandre Bissonnette.

Nice that we were represented. :stillsick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

The Crusaders were named back in the mid-1990s, back when rugby was turning professional. Islam wasn't exactly a massive issue in the 1990s, and if anything, the Western media tended to be sympathetic (Bosnia, Kosovo) - September 11th hadn't happened yet. It'd be a poor choice of name now, but at the time, it was probably one of the better Super Rugby names (Auckland Blues?), considering that imposing corporate branding like that makes my skin crawl. There's also the problem of what to replace it with (Canterbury Crusaders has alliteration and flow, and it's damn hard to come up with a resonant name for the team that evokes the area's Englishness without getting silly or coming up with an even more offensive alternative). I dare anyone to deny that, for example, the Canterbury Kakapos, is a laughable name for a rugby team.  

What, you mean Canterbury Morris Dancers wouldn't work? Also, why is it important to connect a NZ Rugby team to our former colonial masters, when we mostly want to move towards a future that is increasingly less defined by out problmeatic colonial past.

2 hours ago, Wethers said:

Canterbury Cavalry or Cavaliers?  Chargers?  Could keep most of the logo.

At some point, why not get a new name?  I mean almost no one would think a sports team named, say, the “Riyadh Jihadists” would be a good idea even though it flows off the tongue.  Why is Canterbury Crusaders any different?

(And yes having a NFL team called the Washington Redskins is not good - saying this as a huge American football fan).

Interestingly Cavaliers is also a problematic name for New Zealand Rugby specifically. In the 1980s a bunch of Rugby players toured South Africa without any official recognition, and they called themselves the Cavaliers. It would arguably be worse to change to Cavaliers than stay as Crusaders. But your overall point is good.

In the very least, any imagery directly evoking the Crusades should be removed from the team, ie any symbols of a religious nature. Albeit knights on horseback brandishing long swords does rather directly evoke the Crusades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Aaaand the Australian right wing journalism, mainstream conservative party (ie our current government) and awful media personalities are already pivoting to dismiss the risk of these Nazis.

The guy in charge of our federal police has gone "both sides" ala Trump as apparently denouncing the danger posed by a group that just murdered 50 people is as bad/dangerous as... murdering 50 people. And our appalling "star" radio couple have Fraser Anning (the Nazi senator that released the victim blaming statement) on their radio show to complain about egg boy being cowardly.

Fuck this country, I'm scared and appalled.

Edit: adding a link as proof of the first one -

Dutton is the Home Affairs minister and his portfolio includes national security and law enforcement.

Edited by karaddin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put the 50 killings in a wee bit of context for New Zealand:

Quote

On average [in New Zealand] there were 74 homicides a year between 2007 and 2011, dropping to 63 between 2012 and 2016.

Politicians of the right-wing west:

Islamic terrorists: Every Muslim is potentially dangerous, we need to stop them from coming to our country to keep us safe.

White nationalists: eh, they're just a fringe group, there's hardly any of them, they aren't a real threat. What we say doesn't influence people to do bad things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Aaaand the Australian right wing journalism, mainstream conservative party (ie our current government) and awful media personalities are already pivoting to dismiss the risk of these Nazis.

....

Dutton is the Home Affairs minister and his portfolio includes national security and law enforcement.

The context to this was the Greens party calling out Dutton's own toxic comments about Muslim immigration, and questioning the environment they've created. Dutton has then predictably lumped this criticism in with Anning's commentary as 'politically motivated', while dismissing his contribution which of course had no political consideration at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, karaddin said:

Aaaand the Australian right wing journalism, mainstream conservative party (ie our current government) and awful media personalities are already pivoting to dismiss the risk of these Nazis.

The guy in charge of our federal police has gone "both sides" ala Trump as apparently denouncing the danger posed by a group that just murdered 50 people is as bad/dangerous as... murdering 50 people. And our appalling "star" radio couple have Fraser Anning (the Nazi senator that released the victim blaming statement) on their radio show to complain about egg boy being cowardly.

Fuck this country, I'm scared and appalled.

 

So the skinny kid who infiltrates a right-wing circle jerk of hate to egg the head jerk is the coward. Riiiight. And radio stations are giving this guy a voice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So the skinny kid who infiltrates a right-wing circle jerk of hate to egg the head jerk is the coward. Riiiight. And radio stations are giving this guy a voice?

I mean, its the same radio show that put a teenager girl on a lie detector and wound up with a  37 year old man (Kyle) interrogating a 14 year old girl about her sexual history which was that she had been raped 2 years prior. And that's only one of a number of awful cases that demonstrate they are thoroughly disgusting human beings but somehow remain a very popular radio show. But its not like they'll be that much worse than the rest of our media on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I mean, its the same radio show that put a teenager girl on a lie detector and wound up with a  37 year old man (Kyle) interrogating a 14 year old girl about her sexual history which was that she had been raped 2 years prior. And that's only one of a number of awful cases that demonstrate they are thoroughly disgusting human beings but somehow remain a very popular radio show. But its not like they'll be that much worse than the rest of our media on this one.

A lot of media is gutter trash these days, and I feel like talk radio is the sewer into which that gutter trash flows.

Fraser Anning playing the victim card

Quote

But in a high-security media conference in Brisbane on Monday, Anning said his words had been twisted.

"I said I utterly oppose all forms of violence within our community and I totally condemn the actions of that gunman in New Zealand," he said.

"What people took out of context was in that same release I say that countries that allow large scale Muslim immigration invariably have escalations in crime, violence and terrorist attacks."

When asked whether it was appropriate to make those comments after dozens of Muslims had been killed while praying, Anning stood by his comments.

"I don't think it can be called hateful speech if I state a fact," he said.

I mean, it's not fact in New Zealand. Crime, violence and terrorism have not been features of Muslim immigration into New Zealand. Until last week that is. It's still victim blaming however you cut it.

If women wear skimpy clothes then rape and sexual assaults will increase, so the problem with rape and sexual assaults is women being allowed to wear skimpy clothes. The first part of that sentence may be a fact, but the conclusion drawn  and the implied solution is complete BS. And Anning is applying the same logic here.

Where has the rise in crime, violence and terror attacks been in Aus in relation to Muslim immigration? Isn't the biggest terror attack Aus has suffered the Bali bombing? Which you can hardly blame on Muslim immigration into Aus.

I like how he claims crime rates in general are the fault of Muslims. AFAIK, there is no evidence at all that crime in general has risen because of Muslim immigration, except perhaps for the crimes where the victims are Muslim. It does seem like since crime rates in Aus have been slowly creeping up since 2012. But they are still well below what they were in 2008-2010. Has there been any analysis of the modest increases in the last 6 years?

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

She's not wrong IMO, except in calling Sam Harris a Liberal. He's certainly not that.

Also interesting comment:

"Stochastic Terrorism: noun - The public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable, but whose specifics cannot be predicted."

So true, it's how politicians and commentators can justify all the shit they say as not being the cause of anything bad that happens.

Edited by The Anti-Targ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a different definition from the other I just saw and I would say this attack does fit that. The other I saw specifically restricted it to lone wolf attacks and I think the indications are that this was significantly more involved than other attacks that earn that name, not the least of which was the involvement of 4 people not 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, karaddin said:

That's a different definition from the other I just saw and I would say this attack does fit that. The other I saw specifically restricted it to lone wolf attacks and I think the indications are that this was significantly more involved than other attacks that earn that name, not the least of which was the involvement of 4 people not 1.

Wasn't at least one of them let go? I can't keep track of the changing news but I believe one of them was an armed bystander that tried to help and was let go shortly after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Wasn't at least one of them let go? I can't keep track of the changing news but I believe one of them was an armed bystander that tried to help and was let go shortly after.

Possibly, I've backed off on following the details so closely after the initial news. In any case its the international and internet connections that I'm more interested in drawing the distinction from a lone wolf attack over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. This is genuinely creepy.

As you may know, Tarrant has lived in my home city of Dunedin for the past two years (specifically in the suburb of Andersons Bay). An ex-girlfriend of mine was looking for a place to rent recently, and actually went to his house a couple of weeks ago. The agent told her that the current occupant was intending to move back to Australia. Anyway, she actually saw his place, the computer, and the rest of his stuff - though the laundry door was apparently locked at the time.

I've told her to go to the Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×