New Zealand mosques: Several dead after shootings in Christchurch

Two main reasons.

1. Easy money
2. The command to spread Islam and take over the world. And in the meantime teach those infidels who's boss. The name begins with "A".

 

And not necessarily in that order??

 

I guess not.

 

Awe, someone has been telling you porkies,

 

You have just made me remember. You may have heard of Cable Street. It happened when Trade Unionists and Jews got together to stop Mosley and his black shirted fascists from marching through the area. They had been marching through different areas of London and had been gaining support. Trade Unionists, other East End workers and Jews decided this time 'they shall not pass' and there was a battle of sorts. Mosley did not pass. This is what has been given the credit as to why the UK did not go fascist. But...antisemitism did not get less after the battle of Cable Street. It got worse. What resolved the matter was that Cable Street made the Government afraid of civil war and so brought in all kinds of laws which massively restricted what Mosley and the black shirts could do and that is what ended the march for fascism in England - it never caught on in Scotland as the Prods were sure the Catholics were behind it.

From that it would appear that he got it wrong and the censorship if it comes would rather stop it spreading in Australia/New Zealand.

 

I support the right of all people to protest and speak, irrespective of ideology. Including ideologies I strongly disagree with.

 

Despite several times of asking, I never ever get an answer from 'the usual suspects' to my post 499 at the bottom of the previous posts page. Why is that, I wonder? I'd have thought that @alexa or @RiaRaeb might have the answer, but for some reason don't want to share it?

Just to be clear, this isn't a Rule 4 infringement ( ), rather an invitation to expand upon their respective stances?

 

You may do but that was not what I was talking about.

 

I am not familiar with the event you are talking about, I'd be happy to research but based on what you said "Trade Unionists and Jews got together to stop Mosley and his black shirted fascists from marching through the area", I do not support that.

 

Don't give up Cerberus.
Remember, to grasp the truth you must REVERSE what the liberal mind thinks.
ie when you hear "toxic masculinity" just think "toxic feminism."
And when you hear "This is not about them, it's about us and our fears and hatreds
of those who are different." just remember who is doing most of the killing, which
countries have the greatest prejudices, which cultures have the least tolerance -
it's Islam.
Recall the 49 killed in Orlando - it was an attack on a gay bar by an Islamist. When,
through immigration, birthrate, conversion and sheer terror - there are no more gay
bars and no more gays even, then remember this, quote "it's about us and our fears
and hatreds of those who are different."

 

Must have been someone called google...

 

My point was that you stated that the mass murderer believed that his killing would create censorship which would attract more people to murdering Muslims, whereas if you look at what happened after Cable Street, censorship rather than making Jews more vulnerable made them safer. If you believe that the people who decided enough was enough and fascism was an ideology they would not give licence to because as Popper made clear tolerance towards intolerance leads to the death of tolerance, then to you the trade unionists, workers and Jews were in the wrong. This by the way was one of the reasons given for the success of fascism in Germany. Liberals there were too tolerant, thinking if they allowed them to speak and spoke back they would come to understand. Before they had finished speaking they no longer had the right to. In Britain it went the opposite way due to the Battle of Cable Street. To you as they were being intolerant including with their fists against intolerance, they were in the wrong and you disapprove of this. You claimed that the murderer believed that by killing women children and men, Australia would introduce some censorship and that would lead to his movement of violent killing of people because they are Muslims to increase as a response to censorship. I am saying that the censorship which came about after Cable Street, this time because the Government was afraid of civil war, destroyed Fascism in the UK. I am saying the murderer has it wrong. I am not making an opinion on whether there should be censorship or not, just pointing out that I think if he had done more research rather than listening to the people he was listening to, who clearly will have been wanting to provoke him, he would not believe what he said would work.

 

I talk to a lot of people and the one thing we have in common on fascism is that the only attraction we have to it is that a lot of their ideas are illegal and forbidden knowledge is attractive.

You dont beat these people by trashing our liberties and playing their game, you beat them by taking the higher ground and humiliating their pathetic ideas very publically, which fortunately is easy because they're at such an intellectual deficit.

 

You're 0 for 2.

 

You are suggesting such people have not yet emerged from adolescence and you appear to be including yourself

I have shown you that in the UK it was censorship and other restrictions which stopped fascism. Given this I am suggesting that he was wrong to believe that censorship would create more mass killings. I have also shown you how in the case of extreme intolerance, tolerance towards it destroys tolerance - that is allows those acting in the offensive way to gain control. Fascinating that you equate the desire to stop mass murder towards people because of their religion to those organising this mass hatred of people because of their religion and the mass murder of them. I do not in any way understand you there. Oh OK you are saying the Muslim Murderers and haters do not want them to have the right to speak and so they must die because of this and we must allow those who preach against Muslims to continue to do so and with wonderful dialogue we will win them over. It doesn't work. Please read the Paradox of tolerance a link to which I have already provided.

 

Suppression of free speech, free association, and free protest is itself descent into totalitarianism.

I want the opportunity to humiliate these people in public as a demonstration to anyone who might be considering taking up their ideology.

 

well said

 

co-sign this.

 

That is not what this is about. It is about supressing people promoting hatred towards people and committing mass murder against others because of their religion.

You will not humiliate them. In the past they certainly could be humiliated. They were crafty though. They came on boards and said 'if you do not let us speak, we will get worse' and people let them speak. They then broke through each taboo there was so that now they are getting near the numbers prior to WW2. Public unacceptance of the promotion of hate towards another people and so on came from ideas created in some part by the Frankfurt school who set themselves the task of understanding how the holocaust happened and making sure it never happened again to Jews or anyone else. You may remember when the demand was being put in that their ideas were as good as as anyone else's it was the Frankfurt school which was frequently sited as destroying their rights. I have already pointed out to you how many believe it was the tolerance of Germany which allowed the Nazis to gain a foothold. I would suggest that our tolerance towards views which would have been publicly unacceptable just a few years ago is why these people have multiplied at the enormous pace they have...and if we look at where this particular mass murderer came from, it appears Australia has been very open to this.

continued
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...bia-is-practically-enshrined-as-public-policy

Britain has also seen a massive rise in the far right communicating on the internet in the past year.

No, tolerance towards intolerance destroys tolerance and replaces it with intolerance. This was what happened in Germany in the 30's when it was thought the most liberal country in the world and liberals tried to be tolerant to the Nazis and talk them out of it and this can be seen as once again being a massive threat to another people largely because being anonymous little by little the internet has allowed such people to challenge these provisions which were put in place to keep minorities safe from another holocaust. Little by little they have been able to demand they speak their hate and little by little made their voice tolerated. Tolerance of intolerance destroys Tolerance. All that survives is intolerance. That is reality.

The murderer was wrong when he believed that censorship of the promotion of hate and violence would lead to more terrorism.

 

Am I? Oh right!

 

It would be like talking to Jehovah's Witnesses. Logic doesn't work with them.

 

I'm not talking to convince them. Do you seriously think if you censor their speech and ban their association they will all of a sudden become liberals or conservatives?

I am doing it for the people in the crowd.

 

I think that if no one is listening to them, their existence is pointless.

 

Let's see what an adult in the room has to say:

 

It took Adam Kinzinger a Repub to call out CNN for trying to tie Trump to this NZ shooting. That is how pathetic CNN truly is and yet they want to claim they are a News Source.

LMAO an Eco Facist huh. Funny how all those Eco people tend to get violent over their environmental issues.

The guy was a nutcase and if he wanted to go after any sort of Muslims. He should have went in Daesh, AQ, or Ansar al Sharia turf. Then made whatever point he was trying to make.

He isn't the one trying to create the discord between the Left and Right. That clearly falls on those of the Leftness. Lame Stream Media included. For some odd reason they think that if the can get those on the Right to start a civil war. That it will change their outcome. Not realizing no matter who starts it. That they lose either way. That is the only outcome.