LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 03-28-2019, 11:47 PM   #31
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
I couldn't help but wonder why you felt the need to see the video. By your own statement you weren't watching it being streamed live. Did you watch the video of Danny Pearl being beheaded, too?
I think you're being a bit harsh with the OP here. There's really nothing in his post that suggests he was watching the footage in order to satisfy some morbid sense of curiosity; it was just an event that was all over the news.

It's a bit like with the 9/11 attacks: the footage of the planes striking the towers and people jumping to their deaths was played over and over again on every news channel, simply because it was such a horrible event, and any footage documenting it was very much considered newsworthy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by descendant_command View Post
Would you do the same for kiddie porn?
Really, I think you're being a lot more than a little harsh with the OP. He simply watched the evidence of a horrible crime (committed in full view of the public, no less), something that's generally considered a requirement for someone wanting to form an objective opinion of an event. Not really analogous to someone watching images or video depicting sexual acts with minors.

(And for the record, if someone made the accusation "decendant_command committed atrocious crimes against children", then yes, I'd demand to see the evidence before believing the accusation. Which is why if you're ever called upon for jury duty in such cases, you are indeed expected to watch material of the kind you refer to. In fact, in many countries, any and all material entered into evidence will be made available to any member of the public after, or in some cases even during a trial.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by descendant_command View Post
While I certainly sympathize with friends and family members of the victims that take exception to such footage being used in a sensationalist manner, I'd like to point out that the banning of information is precisely the kind of totalitarian reaction the shooter was hoping to provoke. I mean, he said so in his manifesto. Why would we want to do his bidding?

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 03-28-2019 at 11:48 PM.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 01:24 AM   #32
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
I think you're being a bit harsh with the OP here. There's really nothing in his post that suggests he was watching the footage in order to satisfy some morbid sense of curiosity; it was just an event that was all over the news.

There's nothing in my post that accuses him of watching it "in order to satisfy some morbid sense of curiosity".


Quote:
Originally Posted by teckk View Post
I got the video and manifesto online so that I could see for myself what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
I couldn't help but wonder why you felt the need to see the video. By your own statement you weren't watching it being streamed live. Did you watch the video of Danny Pearl being beheaded, too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
It's a bit like with the 9/11 attacks: the footage of the planes striking the towers and people jumping to their deaths was played over and over again on every news channel, simply because it was such a horrible event, and any footage documenting it was very much considered newsworthy.
It's not at all like the 911 attack that was broadcast live over TV worldwide. It was streamed live over Facebook, unless I'm mistaken, and OP searched it out to view it by his own statement.

I didn't watch it or the Danny Pearl video, though I did know a guy who told me he watched the video of Danny Pearl being beheaded. I heard about it and that's enough for me.

I asked OP why he felt the need to see it and still waiting for an answer from him.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 07:56 AM   #33
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
There's nothing in my post that accuses him of watching it "in order to satisfy some morbid sense of curiosity".
Then I apologise. Somehow I got the impression from your post that your position is that wanting to look at the livestream footage is in itself immoral or objectionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
It's not at all like the 911 attack that was broadcast live over TV worldwide. It was streamed live over Facebook, unless I'm mistaken, and OP searched it out to view it by his own statement.
Isn't that mostly because the media landscape has changed rather radically since 2001? Today you choose to look at news by clicking on a link, while in 2001 you chose to look at news by tuning in to, say, CNN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
I asked OP why he felt the need to see it and still waiting for an answer from him.
I haven't seen the footage myself, but I'd like to for a number of reasons.

As you've probably seen, since the attack, numerous contradictory narratives have emerged in the media. For instance:
  • Some media outlets have made claims that the perpetrator was radicalized in online forums (link).
  • Other articles have claimed "gaming culture" plays a role in radicalizing young people in general and the Christchurch shooter in particular. (link)
  • In other news, the Swedish YouTuber/Twitch streamer "PewDiePie" somehow bears some responsibility for the massacre. (link)
  • During a very recent rally purportedly promoting peace, an imam of another mosque near Christchurch used his platform to state his belief that Mossad must have financed the shooter, and that local Jewish businesses were also complicit (link).
I don't see how one can get to the bottom of this without examining all the evidence, including reading the shooter's manifesto and observing his behaviour in the livestream.

Of course, no-one should feel obliged to do either of those things; surely, shooting a bunch of people peacefully assembling for a religious service is an atrocious crime regardless of the motivations of the perpetrator.

But on the other hand, if for some reason one wants to participate in the discussion about what causes such extremism and how one might push back against it, surely knowing the actual facts of the matter is paramount?

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 03-29-2019 at 08:21 AM. Reason: quoting error
 
Old 03-29-2019, 10:57 AM   #34
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Then I apologise. Somehow I got the impression from your post that your position is that wanting to look at the livestream footage is in itself immoral or objectionable.
No problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Isn't that mostly because the media landscape has changed rather radically since 2001? Today you choose to look at news by clicking on a link, while in 2001 you chose to look at news by tuning in to, say, CNN.

I can click on a link to the story on a mainstream internet news site and it tell me everything I need to know about what went down without choosing to look at a 16 minute video of some guy killing helpless people.

That's where you seem to have trouble drawing the distinction.

If you turned on the TV it was pretty much wall-to-wall coverage of what went down. Not every TV channel chose to continue to run the footage, or the image, of the guy who jumped to his death but it was hard to turn on the TV and not see planes crashing into buildings, people walking on the street covered with dust, etc.

When I open my browser it doesn't load a video of the New Zealand carnage and nobody makes me watch anything I don't choose to watch. If I wanted to see it I would have to go look for it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
I haven't seen the footage myself, but I'd like to for a number of reasons.

As you've probably seen, since the attack, numerous contradictory narratives have emerged in the media. For instance:
  • Some media outlets have made claims that the perpetrator was radicalized in online forums (link).
  • Other articles have claimed "gaming culture" plays a role in radicalizing young people in general and the Christchurch shooter in particular. (link)
  • In other news, the Swedish YouTuber/Twitch streamer "PewDiePie" somehow bears some responsibility for the massacre. (link)
  • During a very recent rally purportedly promoting peace, an imam of another mosque near Christchurch used his platform to state his belief that Mossad must have financed the shooter, and that local Jewish businesses were also complicit (link).

I don't see how one can get to the bottom of this without examining all the evidence, including reading the shooter's manifesto and observing his behaviour in the livestream.

What exactly are you hoping to learn from his behavior while watching the livestream? You won't be seeing him, only what he saw. A bunch of people being shot.

What insight do you hope to gain from the evidence it might reveal to you and what do you hope to take away from the experience?



No, I haven't followed it more than to see the people mourning on TV and to know they've implemented a ban on the type of weapon he used in New Zealand. All I know is some nut walked into a building and shot a bunch of people while he streamed the video live. That's all I need to know.

I don't care about how he became radicalized, whether or not if it had to do with video games, some youtube twit, or perpetuating more racial stereotypes to further stoke the flames of hatred.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
But on the other hand, if for some reason one wants to participate in the discussion about what causes such extremism and how one might push back against it, surely knowing the actual facts of the matter is paramount?
I'm not interested in participating in a discussion about extremism. Only why OP felt the need to see the video, what you hope to learn from his behavior by watching it and take away from the experience.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 11:32 AM   #35
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
What exactly are you hoping to learn from his behavior while watching the livestream? You won't be seeing him, only what he saw. A bunch of people being shot.
Do you know that for a fact? I'm asking because many who claim to have seen the footage, says he made a number of comments along the way that speak volumes with regards to his motivation and state of mind.

But I haven't seen the footage (yet), so I really don't know. And if you haven't seen it either, neither of us can really comment on what one may or may not learn from watching the video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
All I know is some nut walked into a building and shot a bunch of people while he streamed the video live. That's all I need to know.
Fair enough. That's your choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
I don't care about how he became radicalized, whether or not if it had to do with video games, some youtube twit, or perpetuating more racial stereotypes to further stoke the flames of hatred.

I'm not interested in participating in a discussion about extremism.
That's fine. Others would like to look into the matter, perhaps in order to see if there's anything that can be done to keep the situation from escalating. I'm sure you would agree that in that case, they'd have to investigate further in order to form an informed opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
Only why OP felt the need to see the video, what you hope to learn from his behavior by watching it and take away from the experience.
For instance, can we tell if he might be suffering from a mental disorder of some sort, or are his actions ideologically motivated and hence entirely rational seen from the standpoint of his particular ideology and worldview?

You mention racial stereotypes and "flames of hatred". Would it not be useful to determine whether or not this man was indeed motivated by intense hatred, and if so, towards whom and why? And also whether or not there might be others out there sharing his sentiments?

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 03-29-2019 at 11:34 AM.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 11:49 AM   #36
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,624

Rep: Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
...Would it not be useful to determine whether or not this man was indeed motivated by intense hatred, and if so, towards whom and why? And also whether or not there might be others out there sharing his sentiments?
It's obvious to me he most certainly was motivated by hatred, it's called white supremacy. He praised white supremacists to justify it.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 12:04 PM   #37
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Do you know that for a fact? I'm asking because many who claim to have seen the footage, says he made a number of comments along the way that speak volumes with regards to his motivation and state of mind.

But I haven't seen the footage (yet), so I really don't know. And if you haven't seen it either, neither of us can really comment on what one may or may not learn from watching the video.

I worked in the Mental Health field for 9 years. I know everything I need to know about crazy people and am not going to be drawn into a debate about semantics.

You did not answer my questions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
For instance, can we tell if he might be suffering from a mental disorder of some sort, or are his actions ideologically motivated and hence entirely rational seen from the standpoint of his particular ideology and worldview?

You mention racial stereotypes and "flames of hatred". Would it not be useful to determine whether or not this man was indeed motivated by intense hatred, and if so, towards whom and why? And also whether or not there might be others out there sharing his sentiments?

But that tells me what I wanted to know.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 12:37 PM   #38
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
It's obvious to me he most certainly was motivated by hatred, it's called white supremacy. He praised white supremacists to justify it.
What was it you saw, heard or read that made this obvious to you? The hatred part, I mean.

From what I've pieced together from various news sources that actually looked into his manifesto, he does indeed believe in ethnic segregation and ethnostates, and also that some cultures incorporate values that mean they should be considered superior to others. He also saw those poor people in the mosque as some sort of "agents" for a globalist agenda to socially engineer society by means of mass immigration, and that is his justification for the attack, even though he claims to feel no hatred towards muslims.

Furthermore, his actions seem a lot more calculated than you'd expect were they just fueled by mindless hatred. (The video footage supposedly shows him being totally calm and in control of his actions, to the point where he cracks jokes along the way.)

If reported accurately, he claims his overarching goal is to sow discord in society at large between political and ethnic groups. For instance, he says he chose to use guns rather than other weapons that might have caused more damage, in order to polarize gun control advocates against gun owners. He live streamed the attack and deliberately made ridiculous over-the-top pop culture references in order to trigger a reactionary response of censorship and totalitarianism from politicians.

This is why I'd like to know more: I don't want to react with outrage and in ignorance, and run the risk of playing into his hands.

Unfortunately, so far it seems he's achieved everything he set out to do. It makes me think of Mein Kampf: in the book, Hitler lays out exactly how his political strategy involves using lies and propaganda to mislead the public and gain support for himself. It was published before his rise to power, and people still fell for it.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 12:48 PM   #39
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
I worked in the Mental Health field for 9 years. I know everything I need to know about crazy people and am not going to be drawn into a debate about semantics.
I don't think he's crazy at all, unless you want to equate evil with crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
You did not answer my questions.
Which questions were that?

I'd like to see the video to determine for myself if it's actually true that his actions were entirely cold and calculated, and that he showed no signs of rage or even anger along the way. I'm sure the footage is quite disturbing, but then again it depicts a horrifying reality that actually exists whether I watch it or not.

I'd like to read his manifesto to see if he was indeed radicalized by what he saw in France, and how that led him down a path that ended with him committing atrocities against innocent people. To be honest, I expect that sooner or later I'll run into people holding similar views, and I'd like to be prepared to challenge their worldview and counter their arguments in a calm an rational manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
But that tells me what I wanted to know.
Which is fine. It does not, however, come close to telling me what I'd like to know.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 01:26 PM   #40
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Furthermore, his actions seem a lot more calculated than you'd expect were they just fueled by mindless hatred. (The video footage supposedly shows him being totally calm and in control of his actions, to the point where he cracks jokes along the way.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
I don't think he's crazy at all, unless you want to equate evil with crazy.

The picture of sound mental health in your own words.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
I'm sure the footage is quite disturbing, but then again it depicts a horrifying reality that actually exists whether I watch it or not.
Your point being?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
To be honest, I expect that sooner or later I'll run into people holding similar views, and I'd like to be prepared to challenge their worldview and counter their arguments in a calm an rational manner.

Good luck with that. I can't rationalize walking into a building full of people gathered to worship and opening fire. Neither would I attempt rational conversation with anyone who could.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 03:32 PM   #41
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
The picture of sound mental health in your own words.
If he's mentally insane, then surely he belongs in a hospital rather than in prison?

It's comforting to think of crimes like these as the results of insanity, as products of truly delusional minds, since that would mean the persons who committed them are nothing like us. But that's just not the case, as for instance the psychologists examining Anders Behring Breivik reluctantly concluded.

The same conclusions were reached at the Nuremberg trials after WW2: the concentration camp guards who killed prisoners with ruthless efficiency weren't insane, they were just ideologues fully committed to the cause and convinced what they did was necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trihexagonal View Post
Your point being?
That no victim is being either harmed or helped by someone deciding to watch the footage or refraining from doing so. It's information, evidence of an atrocity, like the pictures we've all seen from WW2 concentration camps or the Cambodian killing fields.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 05:15 PM   #42
descendant_command
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,692

Rep: Reputation: 517Reputation: 517Reputation: 517Reputation: 517Reputation: 517Reputation: 517
It seems to me it’s all about notoriety, and a desire to “watch the world burn”.
The live stream, and sensationalist list of (conflicting) ideologies point to a simple quest to reach the maximun audience.

Doing everything possible to deny him a platform seems the reasonable course of action.

There are exising laws in NZ covering the posession and distribution of ‘objectional material’ (child porn, snuff movies, bomb making manuals etc) and the shooters releases were classified as such as it quickly became apparent that it was being shared widely via social media and being watched by schoolkids and being shared and promoted by fwits thinking it’s funny and making memes etc.

Clearly, banning it doesn’t make it go away, but is a deterrent for the general population, stops it being plastered over most easily accessible media, and reduces it’s exposure to those that least need to see it.

The evidentiary nature of the footage is obvious (the “manifesto” less so, as it seems designed to obfuscate) but aside from proving guilt and confirming the no. of charges to face, has no redeeming features, and is basically just ‘murder porn’.

He has also dismissed his duty lawyer and intends defending himself (as per the Norwegian fker) presumably with the express goal of creating further spectacle.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 09:09 PM   #43
Trihexagonal
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2017
Location: Land of 1000 Nights
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenBSD and Solaris
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
If he's mentally insane, then surely he belongs in a hospital rather than in prison?

I suppose it's a good thing having someone like you advocating for his rights as a mass murderer. There are Institutions for the Criminally Insane as well. I would not refer to them as a "hospital" in the classical sense or compare it to Guantanamo Bay by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
It's comforting to think of crimes like these as the results of insanity, as products of truly delusional minds, since that would mean the persons who committed them are nothing like us. But that's just not the case, as for instance the psychologists examining Anders Behring Breivik reluctantly concluded.
I didn't say he wasn't like us. I said I couldn't rationalize the act.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
The same conclusions were reached at the Nuremberg trials after WW2: the concentration camp guards who killed prisoners with ruthless efficiency weren't insane, they were just ideologues fully committed to the cause and convinced what they did was necessary.
I believe most of them claimed they were "just following orders".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
That no victim is being either harmed or helped by someone deciding to watch the footage or refraining from doing so. It's information, evidence of an atrocity, like the pictures we've all seen from WW2 concentration camps or the Cambodian killing fields.
My questions were never posed to the victims. Mine were posed to the people who felt the need to see the "snuff film". No victim is harmed or helped watching a snuff film either. The damage was already done. The point of my questioning was to probe the mental state of people who watch those films.

And since you jumped in to defend him, not OP, that of people who can rationalize his act and think it not the act of a crazy person.
 
Old 03-29-2019, 11:06 PM   #44
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,624

Rep: Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
What was it you saw, heard or read that made this obvious to you? The hatred part, I mean.
...
Well, similar to what others responding are saying; it's not necessarily about "what I saw". I don't need to watch someone shooting up a place of worship (regardless of what place that is) to know that it takes hatred, and mental illness to even think about doing that. He once again was more or less explaining even just while he was driving to the places why he was doing it. It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise (particularly based on what he himself was saying), that he believes that Muslims are the enemy, and what to impose their beliefs onto others, and white man is "in danger". So what wasn't obvious ?

Like the others responding I have no interest in watching the video to tell me what I already know. What's the point based on what we already can call facts ? And like what has been said by others already, I have lived with enough mentally unstable people to know mental illness and hatred for another race/religion when I see it. So I'm also wondering exactly what it is that seems unclear to you, that makes you want to watch the video. I'm not saying that you support what happened just because you want to watch the video either, but once again, what isn't obvious? Exactly what is it that makes you want to understand it better, and/or that you don't understand based on what we already know ?

The other thing is that, if you're going to live stream it while you're doing it, then you clearly are after attention, and it doesn't really matter who's attention that is. You wouldn't be live streaming it if you didn't want any attention, so I think you need to look at what happened rather than thinking just by watching the video that's solely going to give you a "window into the guy's mind". The mere act itself speaks volumes without needing to see the video.
 
Old 03-30-2019, 03:08 AM   #45
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,133

Rep: Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137Reputation: 2137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastychomper View Post
I think you'd be hard pushed to find a mainstream Christian church that doesn't denounce violence and extremism among its members, and given the quotes I've heard from imams in the UK media I strongly suspect the same can be said for Islam. Are things really that different in Virginia? If so then I agree some serious changes are needed.

Regardless of the shooter's motives and influences, my sympathy is with the victims' families and community. Also with any who may have tried to reach out to the attacker in the past: if he was "that way inclined" from early in life, then chances are there are a few people now wondering whether they could have said/done more in the past.
Things are that different all over the world. I think it is quite naive to consider that Organized Religion isn't two-faced or none of them would ever even entertain the notion of "Soldiers of God", and last time I checked pretty much all but Buddhism does or at the very least it's foundations are firmly rooted in Us vs/ Them, Devout vs/ Hertics/NonBelievers/Blasphemers/etc/etc/etc. It comes with the territory of Chosen People.

Leadership of such organizations needs to make a pleasant public face and they'd prefer at least some of their followers not commit violence on each other so they pay lip service to oppose coercion but some sort of Crusade, Inquisition, Racist Purges, or Jihad is just a few steps down that path. At the root of this is the simple fact that Organized Religion, as opposed to personal spirituality, is a business. They attempt to, and often succeed, in creating wealth and power ostensibly to "do God's Work". They even enjoy Tax Free operation in many societies and governments and like all businesses, they fight the perceived competition which fits right into the whole Us vs/ Them point of view.

You do realize that this took place at Christchurch at a Mosque, right? I will bet hard cash that a major part of the motivation and justification for this act involves Religion and it's Politics.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration