Despite the fact he was a Muslim refugee from Sri Lanka on a terrorist watchlist for sympathizing with ISIS, he was still able to carry out a terrorist attack in a NZ shopping mall before being shot dead. Cops tailing him thought he was just going on to buy groceries, until he brandished a knife on display at grocery store and started stabbing shoppers.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-terror-attack_n_6131fab3e4b04778c00398e9

Quoting from the article you linked, here's what the PM said:

------

The New Zealand prime minister described the incident as a “terrorist attack” after a Sri Lankan national wounded civilians in Auckland.

She added that she had been “absolutely gutted” to hear about the incident.

Ardern continued: “What happened today was despicable.”

She was also keen to keep blame solely on the individual responsible, saying: “It was hateful, it was wrong, it was carried out by an individual, not a faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity, but an individual person.”

Ardern said the attacker, who was not identified, was “obviously a supporter of ISIS ideology,” in reference to the Islamic State terror group."

------

So she's blaming the attacker and ISIS, but not Islam as a whole.

Who has a problem with that?

I agree. I mean, if we want to go that way, look at all the crimes committed by people who claim to be christians. And those damn Zoroastrians, well, don't get me started on the Zoroastrians...

Thanks CZ

SC is incapable of reporting anything straight. After he runs it through the funhouse mirror that is his brain, it is usually barely recognizable.

But me being a paragraph/white space Nazi . . . I best not say anything further.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC is incapable of reporting anything straight.
> After he runs it through the funhouse mirror that
> is his brain, it is usually barely recognizable.


That’s practically verbatim, the HuffPo Headline.
As straight as it gets. I just added ExMo because it seemed relevant in an ExMo Forum.
I love NZ’s PM. She’s a badass, I don’t care what her religion is, regardless of her sex or identity.
But the fact that she rejected the faith she inherited for the same reasons as many of us, because she could not remain silent as her children were brainwashed with sexist, racist, homophobic, dehumanizing 19th C. Bogus myths, makes her a rare breed of human being in my book.
But to top it all off, she banned assault rifles responsible for their first mass murder, and all over the world.
That’s badass!
Imagine if that same determined terrorist would have had an M16 or been in America with free access to as much military grade firepower as he could carry!
In stead of injuring six people he would have killed far more.
I am a firm believer in the Kiwi approach to guns, which is based upon the Aussie’s earlier ban, after their first mass murder.
I am all for confiscating every gun in America unless it is controlled by the military, or good cops.
Including my own, which I’d gladly turn over to live in a country that was good enough to elect somebody with as much integrity as NZ’s ExMo Pm!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2021 10:04PM by schrodingerscat.

> I am a firm believer in yeh
> Kiwi approach to guns, which
> is based upon the Aussie’s
> earlier ban, after their
> first mass murder.
>
> I am all for confiscating every
> gun in America unless > it is
> controlled by the military, or
> good cops.


    Thanks for the Fun House explanation!

    Both the Kiwi and Aussie gun bans were the immediate result of mass murders.

    America has built up an immunity to mass murders as a cause for changes in gun ownership laws.  And oh, lord, the havoc that would ensue if gun confiscation were attempted!! "Wreak havoc and loose the dogs of war!"

    And you know that if they come for the guns, the Ivermectim will be next!!!

Considering the attacker used a knife, her use of the term “absolutely gutted” was the worst possible faux pas...

Is it though?

You might need to be a Kiwi to get it, but I thought it was a beautiful expression, a common expression meaning deep shock, horror, in NZ, from what I’ve heard from kiwis I served a mission with in Oz.

    Yeah, I wasn't put off by her expression either, mostly because as I imagine the situation, the culprit would be all 'stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab, stab...' etc.

    As I review all the knife fights I've been in, stabbing and gutting were two different operations, with the latter being more a finale than part of the main performance.  

    There's so much busywork going on initially for a good and proper gutting to be done.

    But as in most endeavors, experiences will differ...

It’s illegal to:

sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives

"Knives don't stab people. People stab people!"

    

What's your point, caffiend? The UK has equally strict laws against firearms, and they work.

Ever hear of a drive-by knifing or an innocent toddler in his home getting struck by a knife thrown at some guy down the street? I thought not.

"Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people."

How many world wide muslims are disavowing his actions ?

Name 10 world wide Muslims!

I bet you can't name even one world wide Muslim...

When a Christian, or an atheist, kills someone do we demand that all other Christians or atheists disavow that murder? Or do we respect the fact that the vast majority of Christians, or atheists, do not view the miscreant as connected to them in any way?

How wide was the murderous Christian? World?

Positively spherical.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When a Christian, or an atheist, kills someone do
> we demand that all other Christians or atheists
> disavow that murder?

If the murderer openly says he did it specifically because of his beliefs, then it would not be inappropriate for believers to disavow them and assert that he has misinterpreted those doctrines

When the Laffertys conducted their murders, was it incumbent on all Mormons to take the actions you propose?

How about when Vallow and Daybell killed their relatives and particularly the children?

What about when a non-Jew beats a Jew, chanting with others that "Jews will not replace us?" Did you, as a presumed non-Jew, apologize for that?

Or when a straight person shoots up a gay bar? Assuming you are straight, did you issue a public apology and clarify that you don't share the murderer's views?

Of course not. You don't feel the need to denounce criminals who share some characteristic with you. That is reasonable since you are not the perpetrator. What is not reasonable is that you insist that Muslims bear a burden you don't carry yourself.

What's the point of being a part of any culture if it doesn't influence you?