New Zealand Police Say Multiple Deaths in 2 Mosque Shootings in Christchurch

[essentialsaltes]

There's just as much evidence against climate change as there is for it

No, there isn't. In case you are unable to click the link in my previous post, here is some evidence:

#1: the forecast is very accurate compared to actual observation.
#2: you cannot find evidence that contradicts the observations.

The truth is the first casualty, when it comes to making a buck. So those pushing for higher climate taxes, ring alarm bells for me.

There are two separate questions.

Is climate change happening? Yes, it is. (see above)

What should we do about it? This is obviously more of an open question. You are more than welcome to not give a farthing to do anything to mitigate climate change. But this doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

 

[Dan1988]

No, there isn't. In case you are unable to click the link in my previous post, here is some evidence:

#1: the forecast is very accurate compared to actual observation.
#2: you cannot find evidence that contradicts the observations.



There are two separate questions.

Is climate change happening? Yes, it is. (see above)

What should we do about it? This is obviously more of an open question. You are more than welcome to not give a farthing to do anything to mitigate climate change. But this doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

As I mentioned, there are thousands of documents proving climate change to be a hoax. You can just google them, or I can add as many links here as you like.
The climate changes 10 times a day, it always has and it always will. So yes I believe in climate change, but I know for a fact that it has nothing to do with mans activities.
They called it global warming, then they found that it's getting colder so they changed it to climate change. They can't go wrong with that term, as we all know that the climate naturally changes all the time.

 

[mindlight]

Another islamophobic proving that right wing gun enthusiasts as far more conserning that moslems.

Statistically Islam is,the predominant source of global terrorism. This incident hardly qualifies as a terrorist attack cause, tragic and devastating as it was, it was by a lone wolf nutter not an organisation. So this reads like a bit of PC prejudice affirmation.

 

[Zoii]

I'm not sure what you base your opinion that the "right wing gun enthusiasts", should cause us more concern than "Muslims".
Just do the math and you'll find that the right wing gun people are responsible for less than 1% of the terrorism.
It's just like the climate change hoax, both of these are propagated by people with a vested interest. There's no scientific evidence for climate change or any threat from right wing politicians.

Do the maths in Australia where you and I live - Gun-Violence in Australia by Terrorists v Gun Violence by gun enthusiast male nut-jobs..... want me to give you the figures? Let's pick a year...how about 2016 -
Gun deaths by wacko male gun lovers = 274
Gun Deaths by Islamists = 0

The same equation exists in New Zealand where this occurs.

So - hey pick any year you like and let's see how it stacks up

So yeah - My statement is like climate change. Don't listen to people who throw around useless opinions - Stick to those who provide data through expert research - Like the Federal Law Enforcement
Or climate change scientists if you want to go there as well.

Anyone else's opinion is worth nothing.

 

[Zoii]

Statistically Islam is,the predominant source of global terrorism.

We are talking about New Zealand or Australia (the birthplace of the perp) NOT global.

But if you want to go global then youre in for a tough ride - One could argue that the USA and NATO killed more through bombing in just about any year you pick. And given that the USA is the only country to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian population - twice - and then several more on pacific islands....... and then more chemical weapons on Cambodia and Laos (who they weren't at war with) and Vietnam, than the rest of the world combined..... My point is - I agree that bombings that are not nationally sanctioned occur mostly by Islamists - but in terms of total carnage, I think the USA wins hands down, don't you.


But hey that's off-topic - This was about Aust/NZ and the mass killing their by a right-wing Islamaphobic.

Another thing to consider is - what on earth goes on in the heads of males. Why are 99.9% of these events by men? I just don't get what goes on with the Y-Chromosome that they so frequently commit such acts of violence.

 

[mindlight]

We are talking about New Zealand or Australia (the birthplace of the perp) NOT global.

Granted there appears to be a certain macho militaristic mentality that explodes into incidents of this sort occasionally. These same macho "$%$%$%" are the ones you want on your side in a war and there should always be a balance between their toleration and the peace of the domestic front.

But if you want to go global then youre in for a tough ride - One could argue that the USA and NATO killed more through bombing in just about any year you pick. And given that the USA is the only country to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian population - twice - and then several more on pacific islands....... and then more chemical weapons on Cambodia and Laos (who they weren't at war with) and Vietnam, than the rest of the world combined.....

The desire for freedom in your posts and especially female freedoms would have been incompatible with Japanese imperialism. I am sensing a slight lack of gratitude for Australias defence in the last war by the Americans. Dropping the bomb almost definitely saved lives and defined the modern era which has not had a major war for 75 years now.

Britain never took part in Vietnam which we regarded as a useless and pointless conflict that America was bound to lose as these were people fighting for their freedom. But Americans regarded it as a fight against the prior global evil of Communism and had sold themselves on the domino theory of nations falling to Communism. So I believe they were initially well motivated but practically misguided to fight in this one. Australia sided with the USA and not the British position in this war.

My point is - I agree that bombings that are not nationally sanctioned occur mostly by Islamists - but in terms of total carnage, I think the USA wins hands down, don't you.

War and terrorism are different things. You would prefer to live in world of freedom rather than under Japanese Imperialism or Communism or indeed in an Islamic society in which you might be the 3rd wife of some Arab Sheik.

But hey that's off-topic - This was about Aust/NZ and the mass killing their by a right-wing Islamaphobic.

Another thing to consider is - what on earth goes on in the heads of males. Why are 99.9% of these events by men? I just don't get what goes on with the Y-Chromosome that they so frequently commit such acts of violence.

Men are and mainly always will be physically stronger than women. I am 99% sure that you can train all your life but will never be stronger than me. I am 6 foot 3 and a fit 200 pounds. There are women bigger and stronger than me but they are very few and the strongest men are stronger than they are. This is the reality of the world. Men are programmed to protect women. To protect you need to be strong. Sometimes the desire to be stronger becomes the focus at the expense of the reason for that strength. Power is given to protect the weak, not to lord it over them or to abuse them. I do not think modern feminism works very well at winning men to that protective instinct over the desire to assert themselves. In fact by putting mens backs up it makes men and women enemies rather than friends and makes the abuse and oppression that women hate more likely.

EDIT: My daughter just read this post and does not entirely agree with it. She suspects that you might have met too many of the "$%$£%" version of males.

She also said I should take out the Arab Sheik reference which she regarded as unnecessarily provocative.

 

[Zoii]

the ones you want on your side in a war

What the heck. So your logic is we should be sympathetic to these gun-loving male morons because I might need them in a war? Seriously this is your logic. Put up with them - they are handy. Good grief.... I can just imagine what the rest of your post is going to be like.

would have been incompatible with Japanese imperialism

What the heck? Let me get this straight. I should be grateful these types of idiors were around in WWII because I wouldnt have liked a Japanese invasion.

I am sensing a slight lack of gratitude for Australias defence in the last war by the Americans.

I couldnt care less - that was in my great grandfathers time when old men thought it was great to be misogynist - Dude its a different world so please dont send us back to 1940.

But Americans regarded it as a fight against the prior global evil of Communism

Yea - Hey it was so good of them to drop napalm on Laos and Cambodia even though they weren't at war with them because - yea communism...oooooooo scary communism. Well guess what - Vietnam sent them packing, communism came in and alls just fine. And geez how you can justify the use of chemical weapons just because you think a country shouldn't have the right to determine its own politics.... somehow you're justifying it

War and terrorism are different things.

Yes terrorism is small scale homicide - War is large scale.

Men are and mainly always will be physically stronger than women

Yes - n so thats a justification for all this - seriously your points are so very scary and skewed how you justify violence.

I am 99% sure that you can train all your life but will never be stronger than me. I am 6 foot 3 and a fit 200 pounds. There are women bigger and stronger than me but they are very few and the strongest men are stronger than they are. This is the reality of the world.

Wow, you are super scary with your views on why it's okay for men to be so violent. I seriously don't want to have a further conversation with you and am just glad you dont know me personally.

Men are programmed to protect women.

Is that why 99% of domestic violence in my country and yours, is perpetrated by men on women. Allow me to quote a recent report on the matter:
"In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband"

Is that why 99% of paedophilia is perpetrated by men
Is that why almost 100% of rapes are pepetrated by men

Your validation of the conduct of violent men has been very disturbing. But then Ive heard such comments before here.

As for your daughter's comments - ask her this - She walks down the street at 10PM at night and sees a bunch of young guys walking in her direction..... How is she feeling.

Now reverse it - She sees four young girls walking towards her.

You see - its smart for us to be very wary of men. The stats, our parental advice and school advice etc....it drills into us that men can be very violent - so exercise caution.

 

[mindlight]

What the heck. So your logic is we should be sympathetic to these gun-loving male morons because I might need them in a war? Seriously this is your logic. Put up with them - they are handy. Good grief.... I can just imagine what the rest of your post is going to be like.



What the heck? Let me get this straight. I should be grateful these types of idiors were around in WWII because I wouldnt have liked a Japanese invasion.



I couldnt care less - that was in my great grandfathers time when old men thought it was great to be misogynist - Dude its a different world so please dont send us back to 1940.



Yea - Hey it was so good of them to drop napalm on Laos and Cambodia even though they weren't at war with them because - yea communism...oooooooo scary communism. Well guess what - Vietnam sent them packing, communism came in and alls just fine. And geez how you can justify the use of chemical weapons just because you think a country shouldn't have the right to determine its own politics.... somehow you're justifying it



Yes terrorism is small scale homicide - War is large scale.



Yes - n so thats a justification for all this - seriously your points are so very scary and skewed how you justify violence.



Wow, you are super scary with your views on why it's okay for men to be so violent. I seriously don't want to have a further conversation with you and am just glad you dont know me personally.



Is that why 99% of domestic violence in my country and yours, is perpetrated by men on women. Allow me to quote a recent report on the matter:
"In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband"

Is that why 99% of paedophilia is perpetrated by men
Is that why almost 100% of rapes are pepetrated by men

Your validation of the conduct of violent men has been very disturbing. But then Ive heard such comments before here.

As for your daughter's comments - ask her this - She walks down the street at 10PM at night and sees a bunch of young guys walking in her direction..... How is she feeling.

Now reverse it - She sees four young girls walking towards her.

You see - its smart for us to be very wary of men. The stats, our parental advice and school advice etc....it drills into us that men can be very violent - so exercise caution.

I am sorry you feel that way about men and I truly hope that my daughter does not grow up to be as scared and angry as you appear and that she finds a man that treats her properly and walks with her down that street at 10pm. You are free to express your thoughts, even frightened, angry and hate filled thoughts, about men because men fought and died to protect those freedoms. The world is a scary place and its not the comfy and naively crafted bubble of wounded feminist fantasies. From your last post I would surmise that you would only want to meet women on the street and that logically any man greater in height or stature than the average woman should be regarded as a threat and even locked up. So glad that is not the view of most women or of most men.

Jesus did not treat women the way you appear to fear all men would like to if given free rein.

 

[Zoii]

Well for a start you personal ongoing rants about me are off-topic. So try to stay on topic and drop all the personal rants about me.

scared and angry

No Im not scared nor angry. They are your projections. I have been factual concerning the crime rates mentioned... by all means show the section where anything I stated was not factual - and do so by not being rude and attacking me personally as it seems your prone to do

she finds a man that treats her properly and walks with her down that street at 10pm

I hope she does too and has a good life - But Im equally sure you have made her wary of walking the streets ALONE at night and its certainly not because you worry she will be attacked by a few girls.

angry and hate filled thoughts about men because men fought and died to protect those freedoms

No I have been factual. the words "hate-filled" are your projections upon me and result from a failure of your being able to compose a logical and calm and objective response so instead, you resorted to this nonsense.

its not the comfy and naively crafted bubble of wounded feminist fantasies

Its not a fantasy for anyone to NOT want a person armed with a semi-automatic weapon and shoot a bunch of people praying. Its not a fantasy to not want to be raped.... if you believe it is then that's a very worrying and dangerous philosophy you hold.

any man greater in height or stature than the average woman should be locked up

What a bizarre comment

 

[Zoii]

Perpetrator switches plea to guilty.

A man accused of deadly attacks on mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch a year ago has pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder.

Brenton Tarrant, 29, also admitted the attempted murder of another 40 people, and one terrorism charge.

He had previously denied the charges and was due to go on trial in June.

Judge Justice Cameron Mander said: "It is regrettable that the Covid-19 restrictions that presently apply do not permit victims and their families to travel to be present in the courtroom when the defendant entered his pleas of guilty."

Sentencing on the 92 charges will take place at a date yet to be set. Tarrant was remanded in custody until 1 May when the court hopes to be able to set a sentencing date.

Justice Mander added: "There is no intention to sentence the defendant before the court returns to its normal operations and at a time when the victims and their families can attend court in person."

What a wonderful job the Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern, has done following this right-wing criminal event. Her leadership following the crisis, her support for victims and family, her strength in not falling for rhetoric, she would not even mention the murderer's name in order to extract any voice he might have had. Most impressive was her rapid move to completely overhaul gun control. What an inspiring leader she was and continues to be.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I mentioned, there are thousands of documents proving climate change to be a hoax. You can just google them, or I can add as many links here as you like.

I provided some data -- evidence -- of climate change. Could you do the same?

The climate changes 10 times a day

No, it doesn't. "Climate is the long-term average of weather, typically averaged over a period of 30 years". It can't change 10 times a day.

 

[Dan1988]

Do the maths in Australia where you and I live - Gun-Violence in Australia by Terrorists v Gun Violence by gun enthusiast male nut-jobs..... want me to give you the figures? Let's pick a year...how about 2016 -
Gun deaths by wacko male gun lovers = 274
Gun Deaths by Islamists = 0

The same equation exists in New Zealand where this occurs.

So - hey pick any year you like and let's see how it stacks up

So yeah - My statement is like climate change. Don't listen to people who throw around useless opinions - Stick to those who provide data through expert research - Like the Federal Law Enforcement
Or climate change scientists if you want to go there as well.

Anyone else's opinion is worth nothing.

There's a big difference between gun enthusiasts, like hunters and target shooters and "nut jobs".
The nut jobs have nothing to do with sporting shooters, most of those killed by guns are gang members and adulteress woman who had affairs behind their husbands back.
So you can see none of the above have anything to do with us right wing people. We see the loony left as greatest threat to humanity.
The statistics show that the climate is in great shape, there are no problems at all. The trees thrive on carbon, so the more emissions man creates the better for our planet as it feeds all of our plant life.
We all rely on healthy plants for our survival, so I drive a V8 car and run my AC all summer long and the fire place is active all winter long.

 

[Zoii]

There's a big difference between gun enthusiasts, like hunters and target shooters and "nut jobs".

Of course, there is and I absolutely agree with you. I haven't grown up with guns as its simply not the culture here. We have an anti-gun sentiment as a whole. But I absolutely get you. You argue that you have grown up with guns, manage them respectfully and use them responsibly - My comments are not directed at responsible people like yourself....... You are like the average Muslim. You go about your business, pay your taxes, and love your wife and children.

But like the odd moslem - you get some very dangerous people who don't act like you - they tend to be the almost exclusive majority in your country and mine when it comes to gun-related deaths - not some rabid Muslim terrorist, they are the tiny minority comparatively in our nations.

Most deaths are related to the very responsible man who just happens to have an acrimonious relationship with his wife and decides to kill them and the kids. These types of events are by far the most common in OECD gun-related murders.

So don't take personal offence. If you treat your wife well, and abide by all laws, and manage your weapon responsibly, then this is not about you.

 

[Zoii]

The statistics show that the climate is in great shape, there are no problems at all. The trees thrive on carbon, so the more emissions man creates the better for our planet as it feeds all of our plant life.

As for this - I can see biology is not your thing. It's true that a plant utilises CO2. So it'd be great if we planted more trees....that's not happening - we are clearing away more trees than we are planting. So good job if your argument is to plant more trees.

As for increasing emission to help trees....No excessive levels of emissions result in not just CO2 but also H2SO4 and CO. These are toxic and greatly harm trees. They affectively cause acid rain.

Lastly, they result in declining rainfall and severe weather patterns. Neither is good for trees. Please refer to research reports from climatologists who have the requisite qualifications and experience.

 

[Dan1988]

I provided some data -- evidence -- of climate change. Could you do the same?



No, it doesn't. "Climate is the long-term average of weather, typically averaged over a period of 30 years". It can't change 10 times a day.

The hard evidence proves, there's no such thing as "man made climate change". The truth is the exact opposite to what the climate alarmists are claiming.
The planet is actually cooling down and nature is thriving. It's always good to get both sides of any argument before we jump on the band wagon.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The hard evidence proves, there's no such thing as "man made climate change".

Which hard evidence?

The planet is actually cooling down

What evidence says so? That the planet is cooling down?

 

[Desk trauma]

There's just as much evidence against climate change as there is for it, so people just choose to believe the side that sounds better to them.
There's no evidence to support climate change, so I can't accept a theory as fact.
The truth is the first casualty, when it comes to making a buck. So those pushing for higher climate taxes, ring alarm bells for me.

There is no evidence either way?

 

[Dan1988]

As for this - I can see biology is not your thing. It's true that a plant utilises CO2. So it'd be great if we planted more trees....that's not happening - we are clearing away more trees than we are planting. So good job if your argument is to plant more trees.

As for increasing emission to help trees....No excessive levels of emissions result in not just CO2 but also H2SO4 and CO. These are toxic and greatly harm trees. They affectively cause acid rain.

Lastly, they result in declining rainfall and severe weather patterns. Neither is good for trees. Please refer to research reports from climatologists who have the requisite qualifications and experience.

I have read reports from experts on both sides of the fence, and found that there's no proof to support the theory of "man made climate change".
There's no decline in rainfall at all, the amount of rainfall is the same as it's always been. The problem is, we have floods in some areas while others are in drought but the overall amount of rain is the same.

It's the same thing with heat, the summers are hotter in the southern hemisphere while the northern hemisphere experiences record breaking cold snaps at the same time.

Jesus talked about climate change, He said it would be one of the signs of His second coming. He causes climate change, since He has full control of every atom in the universe. He promised to destroy this world with fire, so those bush fires are just a small taste of what's coming.

 

[Dan1988]

Which hard evidence?



What evidence says so? That the planet is cooling down?

It's always wise to hear both sides of any argument, before we draw our own conclusion.
We should also consider the motive of those pushing their view on us.
We know that there's trillions of dollars to be made by the "climate alarmists".
We know that the love of money is behind every false flag operation, we know that the sheeple are very gullible and they swallow anything as long as it's popular.
We know that the earth is much cooler than it was.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's always wise to hear both sides of any argument, before we draw our own conclusion.

I keep asking for evidence, and I keep getting YouTube videos. It's just like the flat earth threads.

We know that there's trillions of dollars to be made by the "climate alarmists".

There are trillions of dollars already being made by the climate denialists. Why are their motives not suspect?