Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings

[Fishbone Jones]

Tales such as this, especially from Nigeria, always makes me think "what else is new".  However, like most stories, it's not so cut and dried as the linked article opinion would have us believe.  And, just to piss off the usual suspects, it is probably more linked to climate change than to religion.

Let's first go to Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/
And this herder-farmer dispute is not new.  From the BBC in 2016 "Making sense of Nigeria's Fulani-farmer conflict"

Or these pieces from the Christian Science Monitor from 2012 and 2013.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2012/0709/Weekend-clashes-kill-200-as-Nigeria-struggles-for-control
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0504/Clashes-between-ethnic-groups-leave-at-least-30-dead-in-Nigeria

Trying to understand Africa is a monumental task and trying to make a claim such as that in the Fernando article highlights that the author is either ignorant of the facts or (more likely) is as guilty as "the establishment elites" that he attacks by deliberately ignoring the nuances of the conflict in his goal of advancing his agenda.

There is more than enough blame to go around in Nigeria's long history of regional, tribal, economic, political and religious violence.  There are undoubtedly a few others of a certain age on these means who can remember seeing the horrors of the Nigerian Civil War (aka Biafran War) on nightly TV reports 50 years ago.  At that time the Muslim Northern Hausa-Fulani mostly stayed out of the conflict, while the Southerners (including many Christians) had no problem on embarking on a campaign of eliminating those who opposed them.


(edited to correct a spelling error)

Snopes has been debunked.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I refer you to an earlier post, that highlights that religion may not be the primary driver.

I am sorry, how many Islamic and/or Muslim nations are rocketing Israel, I have missed this in the news. I did hear Israel showered Palestine with rockets though and those usual issues exist.

Any rate here is a list of Islam by nation, could you please list the countries with say more the  40% Muslims and whether they are attacking Israel for me or not.

I think 2 maybe 3 will be the top, so the majority of Islamic or Muslim nations are not.

Abdullah

Hamas does
Hezbollah rarely does, but promises to with 15,000 rockets
Iran promises to wipe Israel off of the map
Syria would like to, but is incapable
Lebanon is Hezbollah sex toy and does what it's told.
PLA has the death of Israel in it's charter, but is to busy fighting Hamas
KSA, finds Israel distasteful, but trusts it more than the rest of the Muslim world.
Turkey's current government hates Israel and would like to subgate it into Ottoman Empire 2.0, although they know they need the Jews to run the administration of the new Empire.
Egypt knows it very nearly lost big time and has no interest in destroying them, embarrassing and hurting them would be nice. 
The rest of the Muslim world would like to see the destruction of Israel, as long as someone else tries the the risky bits of fighting them.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Humans have incredible capacity to create both good and bad in the universe. Good and bad are individual, daily choices. To blame ideology, religions, objects, racial groups or gender (or any other reason) is to miss the point and lets individuals off of the hook for their actions.

That's a big part of the story, but learning how/why people end up looking for answers/solutions in the wrong places doesn't have to let people off the hook.  That's also part of finding solutions - to help those who've made the wrong choices while they face their consequences, as well as to keep others from making similarly wrong choices.

 

[Remius]

Snopes has been debunked.

Source?

Here are a few that refute what you are claiming.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-com-gets-an-a.html



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

“We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact. Such an achievement is even more remarkable given that during this period, Snopes has produced the second-most articles of the six fact-checking outfits.”



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/

More importantly, is there anything in what Blackadder posted that is factually wrong?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's a big part of the story, but learning how/why people end up looking for answers/solutions in the wrong places doesn't have to let people off the hook.  That's also part of finding solutions - to help those who've made the wrong choices while they face their consequences, as well as to keep others from making similarly wrong choices.

Absolutely. Agree fully.

I have lived my life, not perfectly. I have hurt others, both intentionally and incidentally. What I at least try to do is accept personal responsibility for my actions and not blame external factors.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You yourself are a self described Nationalist.  Why would you care what goes on elsewhere in the world?  Donald Trump is also a self described nationalist.  One you have defended on multiple occasions.  One who is essentially an isolationist.

Not a knock your position but I am trying to square that round peg.

As mentioned by Blackadder, some on the right are merely trying to minimise the events in Christchurch with that train of thought. 

"Yes that was bad but what about..."  You can apply that train of thought to anything.

Yes I'm a Nationalist. I am not an Isolationist. I don't know why you would introduce Trump into this.

As a nationalist I care deeply what happens to and in my country. As such, when I see all this bullshit in Africa, I don't want it coming here. I want to protect my country, as I always have. Any increase in crime, racism, murder, etc is of vital interest to me and my country to try prevent.

So before it gets here, how about we pay attention and try rid ourselves of it.

Now I know that's pretty deep thought for some, but I have no problem squaring my nationalism and trying to reduce harm, nor do I find it contradictory.

I hope I rounded out your hole for you.

How am I minimizing anything? This is more discussion that we've had in quite awhile about this stuff. I certainly hope you're not trying to insinuate I'm trying to change our direction here. Or that I'm something I'm not. I think there's been more than enough of that. Move along.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I refer you to an earlier post, that highlights that religion may not be the primary driver.

I am sorry, how many Islamic and/or Muslim nations are rocketing Israel, I have missed this in the news. I did hear Israel showered Palestine with rockets though and those usual issues exist.

Any rate here is a list of Islam by nation, could you please list the countries with say more the  40% Muslims and whether they are attacking Israel for me or not.

I think 2 maybe 3 will be the top, so the majority of Islamic or Muslim nations are not.

Abdullah

Don't even try that. Israel doesn't use it's Iron Dome and fire missles willy nilly for shits and giggles. It uses it to take down rockets fired at Israel.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Source?

Here are a few that refute what you are claiming.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-com-gets-an-a.html



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

“We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact. Such an achievement is even more remarkable given that during this period, Snopes has produced the second-most articles of the six fact-checking outfits.”



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/

More importantly, is there anything in what Blackadder posted that is factually wrong?

Forget Snopes. I can find as many links saying it's crap. Including sites where the basement dwellers were interviewed.

It's in the same category as wiki for truth. People use them when they are tenuously grasping at sources.

It's a rabbit hole and immaterial to the discussion.

 

[Remius]

Yes I'm a Nationalist. I am not an Isolationist. I don't know why you would introduce Trump into this.

As a nationalist I care deeply what happens to and in my country. As such, when I see all this bullshit in Africa, I don't want it coming here. I want to protect my country, as I always have. Any increase in crime, racism, murder, etc is of vital interest to me and my country to try prevent.

So before it gets here, how about we pay attention and try rid ourselves of it.

Now I know that's pretty deep thought for some, but I have no problem squaring my nationalism and trying to reduce harm, nor do I find it contradictory.

I hope I rounded out your hole for you.

How am I minimizing anything? This is more discussion that we've had in quite awhile about this stuff. I certainly hope you're not trying to insinuate I'm trying to change our direction here. Or that I'm something I'm not. I think there's been more than enough of that. Move along.

None of this was a personal attack on you.  At all.  I thought we could actually discuss. 

Where did I say you were minimising this?  I said some on the right.  To be more specific Fernando and his opinion piece.

You are a self described nationalist. 

Definition is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"


synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism, flag-waving;

ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity




•advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"


synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism"

Your statement about our cowardly isolationism seems to go against what you believe. 

I bring Trump into this because he is an isolationist.  One you have defended.  Which goes against what you just posted about cowardly isolationism.

You are being passive aggressive when all I am doing is discussing the points.

Move along...right.  For someone who takes offense at personal attacks you are by definition acting as a hypocrite in this instance. I'll stay right here and defend or debunk your points and their merits all I want just like you are free to move along if you want. 

Go ahead and rant now or not.  When you want to discuss like I thought maybe we could let me know.

 

[Remius]

Forget Snopes. I can find as many links saying it's crap. Including sites where the basement dwellers were interviewed.

It's in the same category as wiki for truth. People use them when they are tenuously grasping at sources.

It's a rabbit hole and immaterial to the discussion.

Please do.  The links I provided from media bias fact check actually refutes the ones you are likely using.

Again, what is factually wrong about what Blackadder posted?

 

[AbdullahD]

Hamas does
Hezbollah rarely does, but promises to with 15,000 rockets
Iran promises to wipe Israel off of the map
Syria would like to, but is incapable
Lebanon is Hezbollah sex toy and does what it's told.
PLA has the death of Israel in it's charter, but is to busy fighting Hamas
KSA, finds Israel distasteful, but trusts it more than the rest of the Muslim world.
Turkey's current government hates Israel and would like to subgate it into Ottoman Empire 2.0, although they know they need the Jews to run the administration of the new Empire.
Egypt knows it very nearly lost big time and has no interest in destroying them, embarrassing and hurting them would be nice. 
The rest of the Muslim world would like to see the destruction of Israel, as long as someone else tries the the risky bits of fighting them.

Okay 2 countries. Thanks mate.

I won't deny the hatred for Jewish people that is evident in so many Muslim countries at the political or general level sadly, that is another topic any ways and a serious one at that. Which should be addressed, supporting one part and demonizing the other is a serious problem in this particular conflict.

Don't even try that. Israel doesn't use it's Iron Dome and fire missles willy nilly for shits and giggles. It uses it to take down rockets fired at Israel.

I will read that as you do not wish to engage in a conversation to defend your points and wish to remain consumed by them. As shown in this and other posts.

But from what I understand the answer is only 2 from out of dozens of Muslim of Islamic nations.

I will take my leave now.

Have a good day.
Abdullah

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Okay 2 countries. Thanks mate.

I won't deny the hatred for Jewish people that is evident in so many Muslim countries at the political or general level sadly, that is another topic any ways and a serious one at that. Which should be addressed, supporting one part and demonizing the other is a serious problem in this particular conflict.

I will read that as you do not wish to engage in a conversation to defend your points and wish to remain consumed by them. As shown in this and other posts.

But from what I understand the answer is only 2 from out of dozens of Muslim of Islamic nations.

I will take my leave now.

Have a good day.
Abdullah

Nope. You don't get to flip this on me with false allegations and other bullshit innuendo to try bolster your mistake. Since when did me being consumed (your words) with getting the right thing done become an anathema to you?

You inferred muslim countries hadn't rocketed Israel. You say you seemed to have missed all the multiple reports on international and national news and the internet. Colin effectively answered the question, showing what the muslim feeling towards Israel is, but you're still trying to win with semantics. It is you who cannot defend your points and are starting to show a narrow view of certain things.

I've defended my points. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction. I owe you only an explanation, not agreement.

We're devolving again. I've done my best to keep things level and honest and impersonal I believe I've done pretty good sticking to the subject without projecting much bias. Try just asking a question next time without all the personal bullshit.


If it is too squeamish a topic for the site, the mods can take it away. I understand. We can just bury it and keep ignoring it because we've become programmed to feel uncomfortable with the subject. "If you disagree with me, you're a racist."

We'll have the conversation again, when it happens to the church down the block from us.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

None of this was a personal attack on you.  At all.  I thought we could actually discuss. 

Where did I say you were minimising this?  I said some on the right.  To be more specific Fernando and his opinion piece.

You are a self described nationalist. 

Definition is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"


synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism, flag-waving;

ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity




•advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"


synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism"

Your statement about our cowardly isolationism seems to go against what you believe. 

I bring Trump into this because he is an isolationist.  One you have defended.  Which goes against what you just posted about cowardly isolationism.

You are being passive aggressive when all I am doing is discussing the points.

Move along...right.  For someone who takes offense at personal attacks you are by definition acting as a hypocrite in this instance. I'll stay right here and defend or debunk your points and their merits all I want just like you are free to move along if you want. 

Go ahead and rant now or not.  When you want to discuss like I thought maybe we could let me know.

And once more, you prefer to paint me by your definition. Why are you so set in pigeon holing me? Is it because you feel better for it? Make you feel proud or something? Milpoints? I don't know. I'm just guessing

We just spent a whole bunch of time on this and you know what kind of nationalist I am. Why do you persist in trying to demonize me with the bastardized version. How many times must I explain it for you? You know exactly my feelings on it, but you persist.

It may sound hypocritical to you, because the more I defend, the more qualifiers to the contrary, you toss in the way. I'll never hit your constantly moving target. Your trying to define me, instead of discussing, is tiresome.

Now, if you still don't understand or can't get anyone else to explain it to you again, you'll just have to live with your misunderstanding and let your fantasies fly.

I'm done discussing me. I'd rather discuss this problem. The problem people keep trying to avoid, rather than try find a solution. Instead of questioning my ethics and, why don't you discuss what we can do to fix these problems? I'm not going back to look, but did you discuss anything of the problem, or just me?

I'll continue to discuss the problem of lopsided reporting, here, with others that wish too. I'll stop hitting 'You are ignoring this user' though.

I don't rant anymore. You're doing a pretty good job for both of us.

 

[Remius]

And once more, you prefer to paint me by your definition. Why are you so set in pigeon holing me? Is it because you feel better for it? Make you feel proud or something? Milpoints? I don't know. I'm just guessing

We just spent a whole bunch of time on this and you know what kind of nationalist I am. Why do you persist in trying to demonize me with the bastardized version. How many times must I explain it for you? You know exactly my feelings on it, but you persist.

It may sound hypocritical to you, because the more I defend, the more qualifiers to the contrary, you toss in the way. I'll never hit your constantly moving target. Your trying to define me, instead of discussing, is tiresome.

Now, if you still don't understand or can't get anyone else to explain it to you again, you'll just have to live with your misunderstanding and let your fantasies fly.

I'm done discussing me. I'd rather discuss this problem. The problem people keep trying to avoid, rather than try find a solution. Instead of questioning my ethics and, why don't you discuss what we can do to fix these problems? I'm not going back to look, but did you discuss anything of the problem, or just me?

I'll continue to discuss the problem of lopsided reporting, here, with others that wish too. I'll stop hitting 'You are ignoring this user' though.

I don't rant anymore. You're doing a pretty good job for both of us.

Again with the attacks. 

I’ll be blunt.  I’m not trying to define you.  You do a good enough job of doing that yourself. 

Second you started the attacks when I pointed out the fallacy of Fernando’s position.  Then you made it about you. 

You then discredited Blackadders source with nothing factual.  When I asked what it was about what he posted that was factually wrong you ignored it.  Twice really.

Discussion goes both ways.

Notice that every time a thread derails YOU are normally a big part if not the catalyst behind it.

I’ll bow out now.  This particular discussion between us is beyond salvaging as far as I can tell.  I’ll follow Abdullah’s lead and assume that you are merely attacking and not actually defending your points because you truly are consumed by them.

I don’t play the ignore game.  I read what you post.  I don’t agree with everything. I agree with some but you really have to work on how you debate with people.  You say you want to discuss...but you rarely actually do.  Just an observation.

Later.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Again with the attacks. 

I’ll be blunt.  I’m not trying to define you.  You do a good enough job of doing that yourself. 

Second you started the attacks when I pointed out the fallacy of Fernando’s position.  Then you made it about you. 

You then discredited Blackadders source with nothing factual.  When I asked what it was about what he posted that was factually wrong you ignored it.  Twice really.

Discussion goes both ways.

Notice that every time a thread derails YOU are normally a big part if not the catalyst behind it.

I’ll bow out now.  This particular discussion between us is beyond salvaging as far as I can tell.  I’ll follow Abdullah’s lead and assume that you are merely attacking and not actually defending your points because you truly are consumed by them.

I don’t play the ignore game.  I read what you post.  I don’t agree with everything. I agree with some but you really have to work on how you debate with people.  You say you want to discuss...but you rarely actually do.  Just an observation.

Later.

Too many untruths there to discuss here anymore.
Bye

 

[AbdullahD]

Nope. You don't get to flip this on me with false allegations and other bullshit innuendo to try bolster your mistake. Since when did me being consumed (your words) with getting the right thing done become an anathema to you?

You inferred muslim countries hadn't rocketed Israel. You say you seemed to have missed all the multiple reports on international and national news and the internet. Colin effectively answered the question, showing what the muslim feeling towards Israel is, but you're still trying to win with semantics. It is you who cannot defend your points and are starting to show a narrow view of certain things.

I originally took issue when you said "all the Muslim countries rocketing Israel" or something which reads as a plethora, multiple or even many Muslim nations Israel. Which in no way, shape or form is true as evidenced by national or international media and Colin's post. But you switched your point of attacks to instead of how many Muslim nations are attacking Israel to Muslim Nations and their feelings towards Israel. Something I did address.

I've defended my points. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction. I owe you only an explanation, not agreement.

From what I have seen you have only provided a sensationalist opinion, that in no way, shape or form addressed my issue with your view of rocket attacks on Israel.

We're devolving again. I've done my best to keep things level and honest and impersonal I believe I've done pretty good sticking to the subject without projecting much bias. Try just asking a question next time without all the personal bullshit.

No, WE are not. Look at your replies, lack of proof, use of vulgar language, relying on others to argue your point and/or other such tactics. Instead of addressing the issue you attack, instead of counter arguing on a point by point basis you supply a sensationalist narrative.

If it is too squeamish a topic for the site, the mods can take it away. I understand. We can just bury it and keep ignoring it because we've become programmed to feel uncomfortable with the subject. "If you disagree with me, you're a racist."

Since when, on this site, have I ever pulled such a pathetic and childish defence? Or..
Hmm nvm.

We'll have the conversation again, when it happens to the church down the block from us.

I just wanted to clarify, for my own  peace of mind. To be honest I'm not even sure what conversation we are having or you think we are having anymore.

Now, I really am done unless your tone and tenor changes. I am more then happy to have an adult conversation, but I will not argue like children and swear, sling insults and act childish. Now unless I have completely misread you and I saw anger that was not actually there.

I bid you goodbye.
Abdullah

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ditto my last reply to the other one.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, do we condemn this hatred anywhere it rears its head and beat it to death till the antagonists are dead or civilized or do we continue to ignore the lopsided exposure, until it lands on our doorstep? We'll only have two options when that happens.

Now, lets see if this sticks. I would give a true white supremacist a dirt nap as easily as I would a true muslim slaver. Evil has no nationality. Assholes are assholes wherever you find them. Excuse my vulgarity. Like a plague, they should be reprogrammed or put down and eradicated. It matters not to me who they are, what they look like or who they pray to.

But ignoring, denying or politicizing it is counter productive and only allows it to perpetuate and will continue to spiral us down until only one side or the other exists. Evil or good.

We need to stop playing favourites or flagellating ourselves over selective crisis' as instructed by media and politicians. We need to treat every incident equally and have the balls, oops, there it is again, the chutzpah to go in and end it with battefield justice. Wherever it is.

Some places could do this themselves, other might request help. If they refuse, they are the problem, not the solution.

Whether Alabama or Africa.

 

[brihard]

Snopes has been debunked.

You cannot ‘debunk’ Snopes in its entirety in this discussion. One debunks a claim, or an argument, or an analysis that is based on a factual foundation that is vulnerable. What you said was like saying “books are debunked” or “this group of people is debunked”. It don’t make sense. You yourself will rail against the dishonesty of the media seemingly in toto, but then link to stories when they suit a point you’re trying to make. What you’re doing is saying “because this (source) says a thing, that thing must be false because it comes from that source”. That’s a bit rich after a week in which you’ve rather unselfconsciously attacked at least myself and I think others for as hominems- a logical fallacy that this is a wonderful example of.

Snopes argues the particular point made, and the website does so with facts and references. Rather than attacking the source, what have you to say about the points being raised, the facts they’re based on, and the reasoning behind the analysis?

 

[Cloud Cover]

deleted double post