New Zealand shootings.

robert88

. Christchurch mosque shootings: Forty dead after New Zealand attacks

Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison said one of those arrested was an Australian citizen.

He described the suspected attacker as an "extremist right-wing violent terrorist".

What's the world coming to?

Pross

Terrible and a reminder that terrorism isn't restricted to any particular race or religion.

robert88

Pross wrote:

Terrible and a reminder that terrorism isn't restricted to any particular race or religion.

So situation normal then.

That's a relief.

Pross

Robert88 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Terrible and a reminder that terrorism isn't restricted to any particular race or religion.

So situation normal then.

That's a relief.

Not sure what you mean sorry. Merely pointing out that the media and many people have had tunnel vision focusing on Islamic terrorism and ignored the signs of rising right wing extremism.

tangled_metal

Anyone think yaxley-lennon bloke is dangerous? Not because he'll commit such terrorism or incite it directly but because he normalises anti Muslim sentiment among such people? Afterall extremism comes out of the general public and exposure to his low end extremist views can legitimise harder views in the eyes of those terrorists like those who were involved in this.

PS does anyone else think we should always use TR's real name instead of his activist moniker? Kind of link his activities back to the real person? Apart from anything else it might annoy him.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Anyone think yaxley-lennon bloke is dangerous? Not because he'll commit such terrorism or incite it directly but because he normalises anti Muslim sentiment among such people? Afterall extremism comes out of the general public and exposure to his low end extremist views can legitimise harder views in the eyes of those terrorists like those who were involved in this.

PS does anyone else think we should always use TR's real name instead of his activist moniker? Kind of link his activities back to the real person? Apart from anything else it might annoy him.

Him, UKIP, the lot. They're just the 'acceptable' face of it. The Met/MI5 frequently report that they are as concerned about far right terrorism as the likes of IS.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... mme-rises/

bianchimoon

Yaxley Lennon, Nigel Farage Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Brendan Tarrant different faces of the same coin, it’s only going to get worse I’m afraid

bianchimoon

deleted

robert88

oxoman wrote:

Sadly this happens all to often and there is no excuse for unprovoked killing of unarmed people regardless of race or religion. As to lefties and righties it's always been the same don't trust either, whether their armed with weapons or words.
Forgot to add politics, religion do not belong on BR forum :roll: :roll:

You are telling us what may be discussed? Have you such authority?

bianchimoon

Robert88 wrote:

oxoman wrote:

Sadly this happens all to often and there is no excuse for unprovoked killing of unarmed people regardless of race or religion. As to lefties and righties it's always been the same don't trust either, whether their armed with weapons or words.
Forgot to add politics, religion do not belong on BR forum :roll: :roll:

You are telling us what may be discussed? Have you such authority?

Must admit I wasn’t sure how to respond to oxomans weird post, it talks about religion and then says don’t talk about religion, do as I say not as I do :roll:
Just to show the effect trump and his supporters are having on unstable people the killer said

....He goes on to reference Candace Owens: “The person who has influenced me above all is Candace Owens”. Owens is an outspoken US pro-Trump activist known for her criticism of Black Lives Matter and of Democratic Party...

kingstongraham

If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

bianchimoon

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

I think it’s quite important that his agenda is not known and he gets as little attention as possible.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

I think it’s quite important that his agenda is not known and he gets as little attention as possible.

again, my poor choice of words, see above reply to KG for a better explanation

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

Did they mention the way the media (including possibly themselves) covers things in a way that helps drum up the sort of hate that can eventually lead to these events (genuine question)?

rick_chasey

The less attention the better.

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

Did they mention the way the media (including possibly themselves) covers things in a way that helps drum up the sort of hate that can eventually lead to these events (genuine question)?

Not sure what you mean?

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

Did they mention the way the media (including possibly themselves) covers things in a way that helps drum up the sort of hate that can eventually lead to these events (genuine question)?

Not sure what you mean?

I was just wondering if, in discussing what drove one of their citizens to undertake this attach they had the self-awareness to consider that irresponsible media reporting in respect of Islamic terrorism and issues such as immigration might have played a part?

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

The less attention the better.

I agree, but in my defence M;lud, It was a newspaper, I don't think they reported anything different than is on BBC/CNN/Sky at the moment. Perhaps Oxman was right and this thread has no place on BR, seeming to be the consensus from replies so far? It's a reasonably rational bike forum, I don't think posting a link to an Australian newspaper report to a major event is akin to giving him undue attention or likely to subvert wavering minds

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

Did they mention the way the media (including possibly themselves) covers things in a way that helps drum up the sort of hate that can eventually lead to these events (genuine question)?

Not sure what you mean?

I was just wondering if, in discussing what drove one of their citizens to undertake this attach they had the self-awareness to consider that irresponsible media reporting in respect of Islamic terrorism and issues such as immigration might have played a part?

Ahh they possibly fed the hate? I don't know the answer to that, not sure what the editorial policy on immigration the Adelaide Star have. One thing I can guarantee is it would pale into insignificance compared to some US/Eastern European outlets

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The less attention the better.

I agree, but in my defence M;lud, It was a newspaper, I don't think they reported anything different than is on BBC/CNN/Sky at the moment. Perhaps Oxman was right and this thread has no place on BR, seeming to be the consensus from replies so far? It's a reasonably rational bike forum, I don't think posting a link to an Australian newspaper report to a major even is spreading akin to giving him undue attention or likely to subvert wavering minds

I agree, I get not repeating his 'manifesto' but not discussing a major news item seems a strange suggestion. There was plenty of discussion on here after the Westminster and London Bridge attacks.

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The less attention the better.

I agree, but in my defence M;lud, It was a newspaper, I don't think they reported anything different than is on BBC/CNN/Sky at the moment. Perhaps Oxman was right and this thread has no place on BR, seeming to be the consensus from replies so far? It's a reasonably rational bike forum, I don't think posting a link to an Australian newspaper report to a major even is spreading akin to giving him undue attention or likely to subvert wavering minds

I agree, I get not repeating his 'manifesto' but not discussing a major news item seems a strange suggestion. There was plenty of discussion on here after the Westminster and London Bridge attacks.

I totally agree with you, I think my poor choice of words may have caused a knee jerk reaction

rick_chasey

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

kingstongraham

I remember seeing Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on how mass murders should not be covered, and it is pretty much exactly how they are covered. Search youtube for "Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09"

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

If you want to know what his agenda was

Seriously, I don't need to know what his agenda was. If he did this to spread his agenda, let's not help.

Tis true, more a mental insight, apologies, bad choice of words on my part, it was an Australian. newspaper talking about one of their citizens and what drove him to do what he did rather than his actual manifesto. That is something that we can't sweep under the carpet.

Did they mention the way the media (including possibly themselves) covers things in a way that helps drum up the sort of hate that can eventually lead to these events (genuine question)?

Not sure what you mean?

I was just wondering if, in discussing what drove one of their citizens to undertake this attach they had the self-awareness to consider that irresponsible media reporting in respect of Islamic terrorism and issues such as immigration might have played a part?

Ahh they possibly fed the hate? I don't know the answer to that, not sure what the editorial policy on immigration the Adelaide Star have. One thing I can guarantee is it would pale into insignificance compared to some US/Eastern European outlets

Yep, not specifically them as I'm not familiar with their politics or quality of their journalism but whether main stream media in general are an issue and need to look at their behaviour. I accept that social media is a bigger issue and harder to control but I suspect many extremists are exposed to issues through mainstream media first before they start seeking out like-minded opinions on social media. Ultimately, one of key aims of terror attacks other than to cause the initial chaos and fear is to try to get the sort of publicity that will trigger a reaction that can be used to gain further support for their cause (the reaction to 9/11 being the most obvious case in point).

rick_chasey

I mean you tube obviously has a serious problem which this has highlighted, which they need to sort ASAP.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

Can not reporting stray into censorship grounds? ie: the Charlottesville murders?, if that had not been reported then hundreds of thousands of Americans would not have marched against racist/white supremacists. You can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP would have preferred to have kept that quiet.

bianchimoon

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

Thats a difficult one, American MSM constantly calls out Trump, the GOP for calling Muslims 'murderers' terrorists but Christians are just common murderers

Pross

bianchimoon wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

Thats a difficult one, American MSM constantly calls out Trump, the GOP for calling Muslims 'murderers' terrorists but Christians are just common murderers

All the more reason for just calling them all murderers. Report on the act but not their 'cause'.

mr_goo

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

At this point there’s not much to discuss.

It’s quite clear what issues are at play in this and I don’t think anyone is new to those issues.

I take issue with a lot of the reporting on it but that’s not new - same for all terrorist attacks.

I've always felt they should report them as murders rather than terrorist attacks and refer to the perpetrators as murderers and criminals rather than terrorists.

I agree. It seems that when this kind of crime is perpetrated by 'labelled' criminals it is called a terrorist attack. But when they have no religious or political connection they are mass murderers ie; the numerous attacks on schools in USA.
It's a difficult one to get to grips with because I guess everyone wants to label something so they can understand it.