Shooting of the Week

[grzegorz]

The NZ terrorist live streamed it and at one point he walked outside and shot a lady walking down a sidewalk. She started crying out for help and he shot her in the head.

I would never watch a video like that not sure why anyone would but at least he won't have the "Sandy Hook" truthers types spreading their lies, hate, threats and conspiracy theories online just get viewers/money and become famous on someone else's tragedy

[Peacedog]

Inexpensive hi-resolution recording equipment has definitely changed how things get reported. You can get tons of actual combat footage off of sites like funker530. One of my favorites was the Iraqi tank rampage video. An Iraqi armor operator ran out of ammunition while fighting ISIS a-holes and basically started running them over.

While manipulation of this kind of footage is at an all time high, it does make it harder for groups to spin and keep it up.

[grzegorz]

Wow! Sounds like a real life Rambo!

[Peacedog]

Yeah it was interesting. +10 for creativity and thinking in the moment. -10 for violating operational doctrine. Tactically it was a bad idea. Armor is really vulnerable without an infantry screen. That said, if you are fighting against incompetents, you can get away with a lot of things.

[Steve James]

It takes a particular type of cold-bloodedness to stream the murder of people at prayer. I refuse to connect it to the right because I reserve the right to be cold-blooded toward anyone who would do such a thing. Unfortunately, the shooter seems to connect what he did to the US.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4soD-TWvOI

I figure that because of the documents and vids, someone's gonna say this was a false-flag operation to make someone look bad. Moreover, I am sure there are those who are congratulating the shooter.

[Peacedog]

In the excerpts, I refuse to give his crap the attention of reading all of it, I've seen of his writing he seems to want to create some kind of society wide conflict. Hopefully this gets resolved quickly as an isolated event and the survivors all recover. One of the reports I read said there was more than one attacker at the second site. But given the generic confusion these kinds of events entail it is probably just a misperception.

As one of my NCO's once said, "there is always time for being an a-hole."

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

It takes a particular type of cold-bloodedness to stream the murder of people at prayer. I refuse to connect it to the right because I reserve the right to be cold-blooded toward anyone who would do such a thing. Unfortunately, the shooter seems to connect what he did to the US.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, Steve. But, are you saying you refuse to connect this mass killing to the right? From the rhetoric, including praise of past precedent, praise of Trump and other rightwing pundits, it would seem that he was a radicalized rightwing actor. I did find this article interesting. It points out that the manifesto may be geared to elicit particular responses, which is certainly worth thinking about. Still, it seems in line with a growing trend of rightwing violence that is spreading across the globe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ll/585058/

[Steve James]

I'm saying that the guy is responsible for his acts, and I don't think I'd hesitate putting him down. But, not because he represents the right. I don't spend energy hating something so undefined. I know lots of people who support Trump or consider themselves on the right, and some might even agree with some of his manifesto. I take it to mean that they simply don't grasp what they're saying. The only time it'll matter is when they try to put their beliefs into action.

If I label it "right," it just gives others the opportunity to label it "left." Yep, he writes things that we hear here all the time. People say that it's just harmless free speech. Well, when that guy walked into the mosque, he couldn't know that there might have been Christian or Jewish visitors. It should remind people that whatever he did to those people, he'd be willing to do the same to you.

The guy did what he did based on labels, not because anyone he shot had ever done anything to him. I try to avoid making the same mistake.

For example,

Less than 24 hours after a crazed gunman stormed two mosques in New Zealand killing some 49 people, an Australian senator sounding a lot like a damn senator from the U.S. has blamed the mass shooting of Muslims ... on, you guessed it ... Muslims.

Shortly after the attack at not one, but two mosques where Muslims had gathered to pray, Queensland senator Fraser Anning tweeted: “Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?” the Guardian reports.

As if that weren’t horrible enough, Anning doubled down adding: “As always, leftwing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views, but this is all cliched nonsense.”

[Trick]

mosque shootings in christchurch ? i dont know, but it sound as a deliberate target somehow...i read on the wiki that in the shooters "manifesto" he describe himself as an former communist turned anarchist turned libertarian and now finally racist and eco-fascist ? ....

[origami_itto]

Yeah, it's those Muslim's fault bringing crime into the country. If they weren't there, nobody would be shooting at them, it's just logic.

And besides, like Rush Limbaugh said, the guy is probably actually a liberal who wrote the manifesto and published it before the shooting just to make conservatives look bad.

THAT'S JUST LOGIC!

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

I'm saying that the guy is responsible for his acts, and I don't think I'd hesitate putting him down. But, not because he represents the right. I don't spend energy hating something so undefined. I know lots of people who support Trump or consider themselves on the right, and some might even agree with some of his manifesto. I take it to mean that they simply don't grasp what they're saying. The only time it'll matter is when they try to put their beliefs into action.

If I label it "right," it just gives others the opportunity to label it "left." Yep, he writes things that we hear here all the time. People say that it's just harmless free speech. Well, when that guy walked into the mosque, he couldn't know that there might have been Christian or Jewish visitors. It should remind people that whatever he did to those people, he'd be willing to do the same to you.

The guy did what he did based on labels, not because anyone he shot had ever done anything to him. I try to avoid making the same mistake.

For example,

Less than 24 hours after a crazed gunman stormed two mosques in New Zealand killing some 49 people, an Australian senator sounding a lot like a damn senator from the U.S. has blamed the mass shooting of Muslims ... on, you guessed it ... Muslims.

Shortly after the attack at not one, but two mosques where Muslims had gathered to pray, Queensland senator Fraser Anning tweeted: “Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?” the Guardian reports.

As if that weren’t horrible enough, Anning doubled down adding: “As always, leftwing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views, but this is all cliched nonsense.”

A sly response.

So, you seem to be implying that there is no link between White Nationalist ideology and this trend of mass murder. Divorcing this guy's actions from his ideology (just saw a picture of him in court throwing the WP hand sign) seems not only indifferent, but downright dangerous. I don't have much problem differentiating between traditional conservatives, libertarians, and straight up White Nationalists. I generally just go by what they themselves have to say on the matter.

Why does you fantasizing about killing the killer come into it either way? I'm just talking about condemning White Nationalism. Seems like a no brainer to me, although I don't have many Trump supporting friends. Didn't really get what you meant there, either. You are just too magnanimous to hold people accountable for their thoughts and actions? After all, this attack--like the others--did not just come out of a vacuum. Rather, they are a result of a number of factors, the most ubiquitous being White Nationalist or Alt-Right ideologies.

I also don't fathom how anyone can still be trying to make Left-Right false equivalencies. "Both sides have great people?"

If it wasn't made clear above, my beef with your reply is that I think it's wrong to separate action from ideology. Ideas lead to action, and some ideas should be challenged.

[Steve James]

Well, I know a bit about White supremacy. I've lived under it all my life. I also understand that "White" people generally think it is the norm or, at least, the way it should be or, at worst, just the way it is and that's that.

I'm against being hot-blooded when it comes to these issues. That is, I know lots of people who have said the same things that the shooter did, but I won't treat them as Nazis because they say those things. Of course, there is a connection between rhetoric and action. But, I have seen people who've used the rhetoric who've asserted that it has nothing to do with Nazism or fascism. Rather, they label any criticism as "leftist." Imo, that's because many people on the "Right" will condemn the actions of the shooter. The question is who is sincere. That sincerity will determine my response.

No, I don't accept the "right/left" distinction when it comes to moral actions. I'm not interested in equating them. That's either naivete or just laziness. If I just condemn the right, people will use it as an excuse to condemn the left. In the process, nothing is done about it. Putting armed guards in front of churches, mosques, synagogues, and schools will not change the views of these people. It's an ideology that has to be addressed before its recognized as destructive. Yes, Trump often champions it, but he's one of those people I don't think has a clue of its ramifications.

The one thing all these shooters have in common is their desire to start a "race" war. I'm not willing to just assume whose side anyone would be on. And, I'm not wasting my energy of false enemies.

That's the question. Did she know exactly what she was doing?


https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5D4F32D6

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Well, I know a bit about White supremacy. I've lived under it all my life. I also understand that "White" people generally think it is the norm or, at least, the way it should be or, at worst, just the way it is and that's that.

I'm against being hot-blooded when it comes to these issues. That is, I know lots of people who have said the same things that the shooter did, but I won't treat them as Nazis because they say those things. Of course, there is a connection between rhetoric and action. But, I have seen people who've used the rhetoric who've asserted that it has nothing to do with Nazism or fascism. Rather, they label any criticism as "leftist." Imo, that's because many people on the "Right" will condemn the actions of the shooter. The question is who is sincere. That sincerity will determine my response.

No, I don't accept the "right/left" distinction when it comes to moral actions. I'm not interested in equating them. That's either naivete or just laziness. If I just condemn the right, people will use it as an excuse to condemn the left. In the process, nothing is done about it. Putting armed guards in front of churches, mosques, synagogues, and schools will not change the views of these people. It's an ideology that has to be addressed before its recognized as destructive. Yes, Trump often champions it, but he's one of those people I don't think has a clue of its ramifications.

The one thing all these shooters have in common is their desire to start a "race" war. I'm not willing to just assume whose side anyone would be on. And, I'm not wasting my energy of false enemies.

That's the question. Did she know exactly what she was doing?


https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5D4F32D6

You seem to be very generous when it comes to avoiding generalizing the far right, but then feel quite comfortable projecting all sorts of ideas onto either myself or whatever the left maybe.

I didn't bring up Nazis, fascism, or white supremacy. I also never made any encompassing claims to moral superiority on the right or left--that's a different conversation.

I am talking specifically about condemning White Nationalism of the Alt-Right which I see as being both an underlying ideology and driving force in these types of killings which, while having a very long history, seem to be accelerating and spreading.

Exactly what are you friends saying that the NZ killer said? He had a lot in that manifesto, so could you be specific? I agree with some of it too. For example, that Trump is a "symbol of renewed white identity." Of course, I don't think that's a good thing as the killer clearly did.

To be clear (I thought I was already clear about this), the Right is not the same as the Alt-Right or White Nationalist movements, although the latter two are clearly contained under the umbrella of the Right even if a fringe element of it (not sure how fringe given the POTUS constant refusal to condemn specific actions and ideologies). So, please stop trying to dumb down what I am condemning, as I feel that I was plenty specific.

You said:

I refuse to connect it to the right

I am still challenging this statement as this killer was clearly motivated by a far-right ideology.

[Steve James]

I am talking specifically about condemning White Nationalism of the Alt-Right which I see as being both an underlying ideology and driving force in these types of killings which, while having a very long history, seem to be accelerating and spreading.

Exactly what are you friends saying that the NZ killer said? He had a lot in that manifesto, so could you be specific? I agree with some of it too. For example, that Trump is a "symbol of renewed white identity." Of course, I don't think that's a good thing as the killer clearly did.

To be clear (I thought I was already clear about this), the Right is not the same as the Alt-Right or White Nationalist movements

So, have I not condemned White Nationalism enough? Have I supported the far-right and associated anything you've said with the left? I don't think so.

Afa what the NZ said, you mean that "immigrants are taking over" and "White men invented civilization" and that "Australia, Canada, and the US are White homelands"? I know lots of people who have said similar. They certainly don't consider themselves on the left. However, I haven't heard anyone here or on Facebook congratulate the NZ killer's actions.

To be clear, I see the killings as the direct result of the rhetoric. However, the rhetoric is not some new thing that I haven't criticized before. I think so-called White people claiming that they have homelands on other continents is silly on its face. Even though, when I was growing up, John Wayne and others held the view that the Indians were selfish and didn't want to share the land. But, the same people say that there's not enough room here, and that immigrants take over.

My point is that I just don't feel the same way about people on "the right" as I do about people like the NZ killer. One deserves summary execution. And, strategically, people who are on the right or have these views will not be changed by the people who condemn them. There are people who can change: there are those who won't; and there are those who would manipulate either for their own benefit.

I'm sad about the event because I know that the people who did this would do it to me. Don't mistake any of my words for a lack of concern or a lack of awareness. Kuzushi sama. Watashiwa kokojin des.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Well, as I think it may be a semantic issue that is at the root of our misunderstanding, I'm not going to keep on with the back and forth. I'd say you are again putting some words in my mouth, but I do now see more clearly what you are getting at. It is usually the case that we agree, which is why I asked for clarification. I think the terms may be getting in the way of that here. I do think it's problematic to view this killer's actions as being 1) disconnected from the right and its current ideologies (even if these things obviously exist on a continuum), and, 2) being totally isolated or existing in a vacuum (this you haven't done, but others on this post have).

それで、ジェムズ教授の人種がよく存じで、学歴や経歴にも感じ入りました。よろしくお願いします。