It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Not nowhere they weren't really looking, and nobody had heard of this nobody before. This is just a new breed of discontents who were created through the power of the internet and have radicalized silently. He has shown that the social media can be used for bad while doing a live feed on FB and Twitter. And the sympathizers will make sure that the footage will be used and will pop up until the end of time.
It seems that terrorism is back, even some sort of new IRA is back at work, we are in for a rocky ride while being targeted by fanatics that believe their own stuff and do not have any respect for any thought that does not compare to their own.
My respects to the fallen victims in New Zealand. And I hope that the other casualties will pull through.
So this is the most blunt, horrific and vile attack on humanity possible. It goes to show what hate speech does to people, even though their surroundings are as peace loving as can be.
To all Kiwi's, hang in there, this won't be forgotten but hopefully will be a historic anomaly.
For those who'd like to help the victims:
www.givealittle.co.nz
Site does go down now and then because of too many visitors, but 'try and try again'.
What is 'hate speech', exactly? How do you define it? Anything you don't personally agree with?
So yes, even without the obvious argument to be made, this time here you actually have the perpetrator naming Trump specifically. And no, I don't want his writings posted here. But I did want to clarify that.
@LeonardPine The "hate speak" point is well made. Amazon and Waterstones are well stocked with books that critique the values of Islam. Do we ban them? What exactly is "hate speak"? where did this phrase come from? I've never seen it applied to historical events. The same for "Islamophopia". There is no proper, grown up debate around these issues. These words are included within glib, crowd pleasing sound bites but where does free speech and free thought fit in? These are complex issues and our leaders (and the media) do us no favours in that we lack a complex/subtle/nuanced debating environment in which to have these discussions.
PS another issue is that social media firms are portrayed as the bad guys with most politicians having not even the slightest grasp of how the internet works. A more important/meaningful question is why are there are so many people around the globe who want to re-upload this video? The internet is simply the infrastructure but it has no morality of it's own. The core issue is the morality of our own society. But, again , too complex an issue so lets just start bashing Facebook. Youtube etc
That said, outside of his rallies and since taking presidency, Trump is just pot-stirring, not promoting violence. (I'll agree that "punch him in the face" and "should have been roughed up" are particularly concerning and not acceptable.) But let's be real here, both sides of the aisle have been stirring the pot to generate political energy and the side effect from that is violence. That includes the the last VP candidate and former government officials.
If you blame Trump, then the same goes for everyone else, including those who have said "to fight in the streets," that the "mad king and his handlers go bye bye," 'to March and bleed in the streets,' to "pimp your wife and make her work for us," and the various calls for assassination of the president (Shakespeare in the Park, decapitated head, the list goes on).
Let's also remember, Trump was a product of the times, not the creator of it. Trump was the antidote to the sycophant-in-cheif, with his raw and unwaivering tone and disregard for political taboos.
"The sycophant-in-chief"? (spelling corrected, you're welcome) What in the world are you talking about? At the very least, I think it irrefutable that America was far more respected by the rest of the world when Barack Obama was President than is the case nowadays. And Shakespeare in the Park is the bad guy in your world? "The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king." --Hamlet
(I'll ignore the part about pimping one's wife, other than to ask: what IS it about cuckolding for you people??? Insecure much?)
But regarding the larger point of whether or not Trump is actually promoting violence: you may or may not have caught Trump's recent statement in that noted purveyor of balanced dialogue, Breitbart News, where he's essentially threatening more than half of the population of his country with a second civil war. In case you missed it, here we are: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-breitbart-violence-supporters_n_5c8af499e4b0d7f6b0f167a8/
https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a26833407/trump-it-would-be-very-bad-if-my-biker-friends-got-tough-on-left-wing-opponents/ "Nice country you got here. It'd be too bad if somebody with weapons was to use them on those disloyal leftists. I'm just sayin', ya know whadImean?" No, Trump obviously didn't actually pull the trigger in New Zealand. Yes, he clearly inspired the shooter's actions. The shooter himself said so, when are we going to take these monsters' own words and actions at face value?
It's pretty simple, hate speech is lies about a particular person or group coupled with the idea that killing that individual or group will work towards solving the problem the lies are backing up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
hate speech
noun
noun: hate speech
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
"we don't tolerate any form of hate speech"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hate-speech
I was defining hate speech in terms of what was immediately dangerous and most legally actionable. The general term encompasses a fair bit more than what I was targeting.
We see politicans and religious leaders calling for a crack down on hate speech but I fear that they are doing the same thing: literally defining this within their own terms of reference rather calling for a proper discussion regarding what exactly do we mean (or can agree ) is hate speech (is it actually a useful phrase?) and how that sits with respecting the rights of groups and the wider right of free speech.
Your point is well taken. We live in a time where agreement is nearly impossible. Everyone makes up not only their own meanings, but their own facts as well. I was attempting to define what it should (IMO) AT LEAST mean. But then, advocacy of contraception is hate speech against God to some. Common sense is not at all common. Another phrase that means nothing these days.
We can only second guess whether Trump had any influence on this guy. His thought processes were twisted and complex. Also, it's already clear that we has and wants to exploit the media for his own agenda. If he thinks blaming Trump or being influenced by him will get him more coverage (even if it's not true), he will make that statement. But so many would love to blame Trump that it fits their agenda and we get side tracked into USA politics. We should not be taking too much at face value IMHO
"The manifesto also makes a brief reference to President Donald Trump.
“Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?” was one of the questions he posed to himself. His answer: “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”."
Make out of it what you want. To me, those who have tried to get their own political agenda across so shortly after these attacks, should ask themselves if that's what you want to do- further polarise in the face of such human loss in one of thesafest countries in the world. That goes just as much for A.O.Cortes as for Trump jr. And even more so for Erdogan.
The good news: givealittle has collected over 4.5 million NZ Dollar. already.
And these stories need to be told as well:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/the-hero-like-the-villain-of-the-christchurch-attack-is-an-australian-20190317-p514xf.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47611811
So once more a killer who is entirely egotistical and aimed at hurting a woman how might have send him away. Not the first time in recent history in the Netherlands.