New Zealand Terrorist Attack

[Cunt]

If the attackers stated point was to sow division, he nailed some of the posters here quite clearly.

Of course, if you only see people as identity groups, it makes it a lot easier for him to do it.

What are you talking about? The shooter sees people as identity groups.

The shooter did antisocial (crazy) things. One of those things was a letter - described as a 'manifesto'. No reason to expect it to be anything other than another antisocial, crazy act.

[pErvinalia]

Nice non-sequitur. The shooter targetted his kills based on group identity. So your initial comment was retarded.

[JimC]

Nice non-sequitur. The shooter targetted his kills based on group identity. So your initial comment was retarded.

Exactly. And not just a group identity, but a direct attack on their religion by doing it in a mosque.

A very different act to the random school or mall shootings common in the US...

[Cunt]

Nice non-sequitur. The shooter targetted his kills based on group identity. So your initial comment was retarded.

I didn't read his manifesto, as I said. It looked to me like he targetted his kills based on who was in the Mosque.

As to what I said, I called the acts 'anti-social'. Is that a problem for you?

Or is it a problem that I think he was actively trying to sow division?

[JimC]

Nice non-sequitur. The shooter targetted his kills based on group identity. So your initial comment was retarded.

I didn't read his manifesto, as I said. It looked to me like he targetted his kills based on who was in the Mosque.

As to what I said, I called the acts 'anti-social'. Is that a problem for you?

Or is it a problem that I think he was actively trying to sow division?

"Anti-social" is so generalised as to be useless. He was very, very specific - he hated muslims, made it clear in his manifesto, and intended to kill as many as he possibly could, knowing that these were just ordinary muslims, not a gang of evil jihadists assembling bombs. He may well have sowed division (although the result surge of mourning and sympathy from all Kiwis suggests little success there), but is actual intention was very, very clear.

[Cunt]

Nice non-sequitur. The shooter targetted his kills based on group identity. So your initial comment was retarded.

I didn't read his manifesto, as I said. It looked to me like he targetted his kills based on who was in the Mosque.

As to what I said, I called the acts 'anti-social'. Is that a problem for you?

Or is it a problem that I think he was actively trying to sow division?

"Anti-social" is so generalised as to be useless. He was very, very specific - he hated muslims, made it clear in his manifesto, and intended to kill as many as he possibly could, knowing that these were just ordinary muslims, not a gang of evil jihadists assembling bombs. He may well have sowed division (although the result surge of mourning and sympathy from all Kiwis suggests little success there), but is actual intention was very, very clear.

I clumsy around with phrases like 'anti-social' because I try not to use 'evil'. To me, both are really more of a dodge...they don't mean anything.

It's clear enough what he was up to, going into a mosque. Kill THEM. The part that concerns me more is the endless use by both sides, to make trouble.

And here I am doing it.

OK, my last thoughts on this. Terrible things were done out of hatred of religion. The person who was willing to do all the terrible things I know, also did terrible writings. I would rather not bother with them. NZ has him in custody, as I understand it. I wish them justice, but I can't imagine there is any to be had.

I wish healing on that wounded community.

[Rum]

Ardern is beginning to be treated a bit like a saint after her graceful and compassionate response to this horror.

[NineBerry]

Saints are people who were tortured and killed for their beliefs.

[Svartalf]

not necessarily, what you describe is a martyr, not a normal saint... just look at the likes of St Bernadette Soubirous (responsible for the Lourdes mania), St Theresa of Lisieux, St Theresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, or the soon to be canonized Sister Emmanuelle, none of them were tortured for their beliefs, some actually were sainted because of their doctrinal work, and got the additional title of Doctor of the Church. some were simply sainted for their good works.

[Brian Peacock]

...
It's clear enough what he was up to, going into a mosque. Kill THEM. The part that concerns me more is the endless use by both sides, to make trouble...

Indeed. We shouldn't forget that there's good folks on both sides.

[Hermit]

Saints are people who were tortured and killed for their beliefs.

The word you're defining is 'martyr'. Perhaps all martyred people were sainted, but most sainted people were not martyred.

ETA: Oops. Sorry, Svarty. I should have read on before posting.

[Brian Peacock]

Christ Hermit, you're such a pendant.

[JimC]

Some saints were hermits...

[NineBerry]

Christianity really went down after 300 AD. Saints that weren't tortured or murdered! That's not my type of Saint.

[Hermit]

Christ Hermit, you're such a pendant.

That's because I've been hanging around here for too long.