DigitalCyberius
Member
 Offline
Activity: 129
Merit: 11
|
 |
April 08, 2019, 05:53:44 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2019, 08:00:10 AM by DigitalCyberius |
|
It is indeed a tragedy, but let's look at some of the facts before being drawn down the wrong path:
*From what I've heard so far, the shooter was described as:
-A little left, a little right.
-Was not a fan of Trump.
-Hoped Conservatism was dead.
-Was an eco-fascist.
-Was a fan of Communist China.
-Did not choose Muslims for the fact that they were Muslims, but simply because they were a convenient group to target for his intended purposes.
-Was not a Christian (as some have tried to claim - not surprising as they also tried to claim Bravick was a Christian too, when he was a self-described Odinist who despised Jesus and Christianity).
-Was an Australian citizen.
-Was a white nationalist.
-Wanted to increase racial tensions and start a civil war - that was his main intention (which the liberal establishment media seems to love pushing ever since Trump got in office).
-ADDED by a user below (thank you very much): "Very nice summary. One thing you kind of overlooked is that he specifically said he intended to cause freedoms such as second amendment rights to be taken in reaction to his acts, specifically in the USA, which he hoped would result in civil war (probably right). The fact is these governments around the world are giving him everything he had hoped for on a silver platter."
*What's some of the aftermaths?
-He randomly mentioned conservative voices (including a black lady) who had nothing to do with what he did, but the mainstream media jumped all over that and attacked them and blamed them for the attack.
-People blamed President Trump for the attack, which happened on the other side of the planet, by a citizen of a completely different nationality, who didn't even like President Trump.
-People blamed "anti-Muslim rhetoric" and started getting harder on people who peacefully refute and criticize Islam, and condemn violence. When he did not choose Muslims based on a hatred of Muslims (he had even visited Muslim countries), nor was his intent aimed at Muslims, but rather to escalate racial tensions broadband, and start a civil war.
-I saw a video where a prominent Muslim leader in NZ was speaking at a supposedly "anti-hate" rally, and he had suspicions (without offering any evidence) of who funded the shooter (because he obviously couldn't have funded himself, right? Eye-roll), can you guess? It was (he suspected) Israel's special forces. And Zionist businesses around NZ. Essentially: the JEWS did it! And you can hear people in the background yelling that. So, you can expect a new round of anti-Semitism in New Zealand... but don't expect to see it on the news.
-Pretty much immediately after the attack, GUNS are also the bad guys, even though the second shooting was cut short by a citizen wielding a gun (I heard some stories that he actually fired back, and another that he threw the gun and it smashed their car's window). Essentially, "let's make sure future NZ citizens can't defend themselves against future terror attacks." The left wants the disarmament of citizens, when in fact, you will not stop criminals from finding a way to get guns, nor are guns the only means by which a determined individual can kill lots of people, and it's a fact of history that tyrannical governments have disarmed their citizens prior to committing atrocities and genocides on their own populous (based on religious views - Christians often getting the brunt of it - differing political views, transfer of wealth and power, etc).
*Now let's look at some of the utter hypocrisy:
-The ONLY reasons this got massive media coverage was because: A. the shooter was a white male, and B. the victims were Muslims, and (somewhat) C. It was in an otherwise peaceful and obscure corner of the globe (with ready access to the media). If it had been a Muslim committing an act of terror against Christians - which happens ALL THE TIME in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, two such incidences of which occurred right after the NZ shooting - and you don't get nearly the same coverage, if any.
-People blamed and attacked President Trump, Conservatives, people who peacefully criticize Islam (which demands hatred of unbelievers and the violent subjugation of the world) who themselves condemn violence, white people, etc, when in fact NONE of these had anything to do with the shooter's actions.
-People, including on this thread, are saying we need to stop the anti-Muslim rhetoric. And what does that mean? That means, to liberals and those who don't actually care about searching out the truth and forming solutions based on that and peaceful discussion, that all criticism of Islam (no matter the facts) must be canned, silenced, deplatformed, etc. Not realizing that it is this very silencing of legitimate concerns and peaceful dialogue that has led to the frustrated backlashes of people like Anders Bravick, who saw problems and violence that Islam was bringing to their communities, and came to the conclusion that talking will get them no-where, and that to get the world to listen they had to do something drastic (a bad conclusion, but that was their line of reasoning). And also not realizing that Islam's texts DO call for the hatred of non-Muslims and the violent subjugation of the entire world. The left refuses to look at the actual sources, and continues to condemn people who are trying to point these things out. Yes there are peaceful Muslims, but: A. that's because many of them don't know or follow the Islamic texts as they should, B. have been heavily influenced by Western society (largely influenced by Christianity and Judaism), C. don't have the right mindset to follow the commands of Islam and the examples of Muhammad, and D. would be considered apostates and hypocrites worthy of death by more practicing and devout Muslims. But the left does not want to look at sources. They don't want to bother themselves with actually searching out truth. They want to blindly say that all religions are fundamentally the same, and are all equally capable of violence, which couldn't be further from the truth. Many of them, such as Atheists, evolutionists, etc, will even deny the fact that their own worldview is a religious one, and have been responsible for some of the biggest atrocities, shaping the worldview of the figures that committed those atrocities over the last 200 years (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, & others, mass murdering the Aborigines for their skulls to sell to Museums, Columbine shooters, etc).
-Just as an extra example of such hypocrisy, the world has recently been inflamed with Brunei for its recent implementation of Sharia Law, Islamic political law which exacts harsh punishments (which amazingly CNN admitted), which (among other things) calls for the death penalty of homosexuals and for adultery, mutilation for stealing, etc. And yet, these same media organizations, political leaders, celebrities, etc. haven't had a problem with the existence of Sharia Law as a part of Islam. They've insisted that Islam is peaceful and purely a religion. They've had spokespeople say Sharia is a beautiful thing and is simply a way of living, by choice of the individual. They maintain diplomatic ties with countries (such as Saudi Arabia and others) that are also under Sharia Law and do not condemn them. They allow such countries to participate in human rights councils, etc.
*What will people focus on, and why they really shouldn't:
-They will focus on silencing all criticism of Islam (no matter how legitimate such concerns are) and call those who bring up these concerns (even if they have been personally affected by it) as Islamaphobes, bigots, and racists (which doesn't make any sense). No matter what is done in the name of Islam or how often. This, unfortunately, will only lead to more frustrated people who believe their only chance of getting the world to listen to their concerns is by doing an act of violence, which will only feed the downward spiral of silencing legitimate concerns and then more backlashes. They will also refuse to highlight acts of Islamic terror because quite honestly they happen far too frequently, and those ignoring them don't want to believe that they have anything to do with Islam. In doing so, they will also completely ignore, as they have been doing, Christians and other minorities who are constantly under attack for their faith. Church bombings, executions, kidnappings, torture, etc. Even Christian refugees can't stay in the refugee camps, and many who apply for refugee status in countries like the UK are unfortunately mocked and denied. They will highlight any further attacks against Muslims to give the false impression that Muslims are constantly under threat.
-They will focus on President Trump, conservatives, and Christians, and paint them as the enemy, when they had nothing to do with this.
-They will focus on stricter gun laws, even though the best way to stop a future shooting rampage, or knife stabbing spree, or vehicles plowing through crowds of people, etc, is an armed populous, well trained, and the enforcement of laws already on the books to ensure people with criminal records or (true) mental health issues can't legitimately purchase a firearm.
-They will likely focus on painting themselves (hypocrites that they are) as being the ones that truly want peace, and truly want to stop violence and hatred, AND are the ones with the answers on doing so. While they silence, hate, and smear everyone who disagrees with them, and ignore (or obfuscate and twist some of) the constant terror attacks happening around the world from the Muslim community (again, there are peaceful Muslims, yes, but that is despite the clear teachings of the Islamic sources, not according to those sources). Yet, instead of looking into it, the left wants to ignore it and silence any peaceful criticism of it (which only leads to a build-up of tension), then explode in selective moral outrage when a loose nut finally breaks and backlashes.
The ONLY real solution, or perhaps first steps to a solution, is the allowance and encouragement of peaceful dialogue, and to treat the Muslim community, and their religion, and Muhammad the same as everyone else. Everyone else is subject to scrutiny, criticism, mockery, defending their positions, etc, and NO ONE else commits acts of violence over these things (no matter how sacred the thing is that such scrutiny is being directed towards). Yet, the Muslim community is protected from this normal Western way of doing things, because a good many of them will react with violence to such things which everyone else is subject to. You don't have a right in the West to be protected from your feelings getting hurt, or from your belief or a religious figure you follow from being criticized, or even mocked. Well, I guess NOW you do, as the political left continues to act as though WE were living under Sharia Law.
And that's that. Please take the facts into consideration, and don't do what the mainstream media wants you to do. PS, I live in a Muslim majority country, I have Muslim friends and family, pay attention to people who look behind the scenes, don't work dirty like the mainstream media does, and who keep track of the news you don't hear every day, and I've actually looked into the Islamic sources myself. I'm also a Christian, so I know how the two compare.
The opinions and views in this reply do not necessarily reflect those of the Cyberius company as a whole.
Have a great day,
The Cyberius team.
|
