New Zealand Terror Attack
- Thread starter Silurian
- Start date
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Ben Shapiro has now been cited in two fascist terrorist attacks and pewdiepie in this, and the fact that super famous people can run around saying "Muslims destroy" and live in dirt and are inherently bad, and throw up Nazi imagery and denigrate Jewish people routinely, and we spend time debating if it's satire or stupid edginess or a valuable inclusion in the marketplace of ideas is a goddamn joke.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I noted this morning that New Zealand authorities were quick to call this an act of terrorism, something some/many American authorities and media seem loath to do. I'm not sure Dylann Roof was ever charged with terrorism, for example.
Perhaps a matter of informal definition
If you consider terrorism only to be there when the the government, the nation-state as a whole, is threatened...
and not for example an unwanted or marginalised minority...
EDIT:
Netanyahu an example of that erosion:
I don't think they'll have any trouble sentencing this guy to the maximum, which is life. I just looked and the longest minimum (ie non parole period) sentence in NZ for homicide is currently 30 years for a guy who killed 3 people in a robbery after a string of other offences.
NZ law allows for life without the possibility of parole. It's never so far happened, but you'd think that will change here. (Australia has about a dozen people in for life without the possibility of parole)
NZ law allows for life without the possibility of parole. It's never so far happened, but you'd think that will change here. (Australia has about a dozen people in for life without the possibility of parole)
Last edited:
I hope they can find out who were all tuned in when the massacre was streamed live on Facebook... and dig in whether they knew in advance
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Says immigrants are bringing crime and ruining countries. Travels to another country and commits a crime against humanity. Classic white nationalist.
Society can't be safe while this far-right terrorist movement exists. It's been tolerated for too long and all it produces is death and hatred.
Society can't be safe while this far-right terrorist movement exists. It's been tolerated for too long and all it produces is death and hatred.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
He also frequently cited Candace Owens, who praised Hitler recently and has said France needs to arm themselves against "Muslim invasion" and has been crowing about birthrates for years.
Just a total collection of garbage humans who should not be taken seriously or given any benefit of the doubt.
The fact that we also have a grand total of like, one major US politician calling for dismantling companies like Amazon and Facebook and Google is a joke. Every single thing runs through them, they are billion dollar companies, and yet Youtube is the biggest jumping off point for alt-right and Nazi ideology in the world, and his whole stream was on Facebook forever.
Just a total collection of garbage humans who should not be taken seriously or given any benefit of the doubt.
The fact that we also have a grand total of like, one major US politician calling for dismantling companies like Amazon and Facebook and Google is a joke. Every single thing runs through them, they are billion dollar companies, and yet Youtube is the biggest jumping off point for alt-right and Nazi ideology in the world, and his whole stream was on Facebook forever.
I'm not sure any other mass murderers in NZ have been charged with terrorism instead of murder? Not sure what you're getting at here.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Fox News already had someone on who said "It's very understandable what he was trying to do from a political perspective" as if Fox News is just bog-standard conservatism and not white supremacist: the station. Or as if there is as much difference between the two as many of them claim.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Yes, I think so too.
In the United States, there's another informal distinction between an act of terrorism and something like a "hate crime": Many people view terrorism as an act of war, and thus its perpetrators can be treated as enemy combatants, subjected to "enhanced interrogation" and detention in "black sites", denied rights to representation and habeas corpus, etc. I've never heard anyone in the US government, law enforcement, or media say this out loud, this is just my take. (fwiw, I think terrorism should be treated as a crime and not an act of war, but heck, if I ran things, a lot would be different.
)
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
We're going to kill Dylan Roof.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,054
But we don’t call what he did terrorism. Which is wrong. Every time this type of attack is perpetrated the point of the attack is to terrorizes the entire population. For one reason or another. That’s the definition of terrorism to me. The uni bomber was a terrorist. This Australian and any accomplices he might have had are terrorists. Roof is a terrorist.
Words matter.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
You make the argument that we consider it somehow more acceptable because words, when we use words we already use for the worst sort of human possible, and we're going to kill him. Hey, I guess you're right. Words do matter, and actions matter more.
Though, if you actually go out and read the US news coverage and consider this important, as you seem to, you'll note that they're using the terms "terrorism" and "mosque shooting" which hearkens back and contextualizes our local, and longstanding usage, of "church shooting" or "synagogue burning" to describe domestic acts of terror. People know it's terrorism man. They're treating it like terrorism. So you have to decide exactly how big a issue you want to pick over your chosen words, and your chosen contextualizing, mattering. Consider farther: What does "church shooting" actually mean relative to the already used "terrorism" charge? Terrorism is usually lethal violence, but not always. Sometimes terrorism just destroys something in a scary way. Sometimes it's a disturbance. This is specified as a "shooting" or "mass shooting," which it is. Which is worse. Next, it's specifically a "mosque" shooting. So it's not a solider, or a cop, or a traveler, or a public street. It's understood as targeted at people during a period of vulnerability, of faith, of destroying intentionally a specific people in a moment of peace. It's worse. These are not new things for us, if it matters, we've described hate in these terms for a long time, unfortunately. Be they bombings or burnings or hangings or stabbings or shootings. It would be much better if we did not have an event to so describe right now, but there are no punches being pulled in the description. About the only traction I'm coming up with on the difference between "terrorism" and "church/mosque/school shooting/burning/attack" is that "terrorism" often carries an undertone of "other" or "exotic" of "foreign" that the other, more localized shame/horror language, does not. Which, I thought was some of the point in the first place. Isn't it? Somewhat interesting in the light of it being a international news story, considering. Interesting in the "interesting times" way of being interesting.
Though, if you actually go out and read the US news coverage and consider this important, as you seem to, you'll note that they're using the terms "terrorism" and "mosque shooting" which hearkens back and contextualizes our local, and longstanding usage, of "church shooting" or "synagogue burning" to describe domestic acts of terror. People know it's terrorism man. They're treating it like terrorism. So you have to decide exactly how big a issue you want to pick over your chosen words, and your chosen contextualizing, mattering. Consider farther: What does "church shooting" actually mean relative to the already used "terrorism" charge? Terrorism is usually lethal violence, but not always. Sometimes terrorism just destroys something in a scary way. Sometimes it's a disturbance. This is specified as a "shooting" or "mass shooting," which it is. Which is worse. Next, it's specifically a "mosque" shooting. So it's not a solider, or a cop, or a traveler, or a public street. It's understood as targeted at people during a period of vulnerability, of faith, of destroying intentionally a specific people in a moment of peace. It's worse. These are not new things for us, if it matters, we've described hate in these terms for a long time, unfortunately. Be they bombings or burnings or hangings or stabbings or shootings. It would be much better if we did not have an event to so describe right now, but there are no punches being pulled in the description. About the only traction I'm coming up with on the difference between "terrorism" and "church/mosque/school shooting/burning/attack" is that "terrorism" often carries an undertone of "other" or "exotic" of "foreign" that the other, more localized shame/horror language, does not. Which, I thought was some of the point in the first place. Isn't it? Somewhat interesting in the light of it being a international news story, considering. Interesting in the "interesting times" way of being interesting.
Last edited:
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I haven't seen the shooter's writing or video, but The Washington Post says he cited Renaud Camus, a French writer, and Dylann Roof, and NPR says he cited U.S. President Trump, as inspirations.
I'm not familiar with Camus, but the article says he coined the term the "great replacement" to describe the growing non-white population in France. Camus calls the replacement of ethnically-French by people from other countries "demographic colonization." The Post says the granddaughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen has endorsed Camus' ideas. They also say the American White nationalists who chanted "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville in 2017 were echoing Camus' sentiment, although this is the first time I'm reading anyone make any connection between Charlottesville and Camus.
Someone, I can't find it now, also noted that the shooter's 'manifesto' used the phrase "the future of white children", which is from the American White nationalist "Fourteen Words": "We must secure a future for our people and the future of white children." The slogan is credited to David Lane, an American White supremacist who died in prison in 2007.
I'm not familiar with Camus, but the article says he coined the term the "great replacement" to describe the growing non-white population in France. Camus calls the replacement of ethnically-French by people from other countries "demographic colonization." The Post says the granddaughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen has endorsed Camus' ideas. They also say the American White nationalists who chanted "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville in 2017 were echoing Camus' sentiment, although this is the first time I'm reading anyone make any connection between Charlottesville and Camus.
Someone, I can't find it now, also noted that the shooter's 'manifesto' used the phrase "the future of white children", which is from the American White nationalist "Fourteen Words": "We must secure a future for our people and the future of white children." The slogan is credited to David Lane, an American White supremacist who died in prison in 2007.
