rigorousintuition.ca

Nobody has been making unanchored speculation Jack. I agree with your scepticism, it is absolutely due. You just haven't made your case that others are insisting beyond the facts or that your view is more factual.

JackR, to Harvey, wrote:Don't give me "what are the odds?" unless you want to survey, or at least ponder upon, how many other special forces training exercises may be happening around the world on a given day.

Ffs, Jack.

A. A special forces training exercise may have been used as cover for the mass murder in Christchurch.

Therefore:

B. All special forces training exercises everywhere are invariably used as cover for mass murders.


How's that for an argument? It is yours. I guess you think it functions as a reductio ad absurdum or something. Of course it doesn't.

Again, compare:

A(2): Multiple air-defence training exercises were used as cover to ensure the successful completion of the 9/11 attacks.

B(2): All air-defence training exercises everywhere are always used as cover for terrorist hijackings

In both case, the truth or falsehood of Hypothesis A is entirely independent of the truth or falsehood of Hypothesis B, obviously. A can be true without B also having to be true. And A most certainly does not imply B. Only you are suggesting that it does, or should, or somehow needs to, before A can be considered worthy of serious consideration.

It is Bizarro logic. This is not like you, or at least it is not like your best you.

Elvis. you said you thought you'd read that Tarrant was married with two kids. That would put a very different complexion on things, if true. A brief and superficial search brings up no reports of any such thing. You may have been confused by the fact that he himself is one of two children. (He has a sister.)

The claim that he visited North Korea with that wife and those kids is very specific. If you can provide a link to back that up, please do so.

Again neither response, not Harvey nor MacC, bothers to talk about the white power fascist movement of decentralized cells and an ideology that invites lone heroes to step up and commit mayhem. Tell me they don't exist. Tell me they don't write manifestos just like that one. Tell me they don't say they want to do things like this. Tell me some of them haven't before this. Tell me they're not applauding this.

MacCruiskeen » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:20 pm wrote:

JackR, to Harvey, wrote:Don't give me "what are the odds?" unless you want to survey, or at least ponder upon, how many other special forces training exercises may be happening around the world on a given day.

Ffs, Jack.

A. A special forces training exercise may have been used as cover for the mass murder in Christchurch.

Therefore:

B. All special forces training exercises everywhere are invariably used as cover for mass murders.

How's that for an argument? It is yours. I guess you think it functions as a reductio ad absurdum or something. Of course it doesn't.

No, this is completely unrelated to what I meant. I assume it is NOT an intentional misrepresentation [sorry: just corrected that on edit], but it is completely wrong. And I think that's clear from what I wrote. I meant, rather, that the "coincidence" is not improbable. Mere waving at its supposed improbability is not evidence or an argument. That's why, if you want to make a case that the special forces meeting is relevant just based on the coincidence factor, then it's relevant how often such exercises happen.

Also, as I wrote: Why do the unspecified conspirators (except we like Mossad for it, so let's specify that, why not?) need this at all? Why would the killers or helpers hide out at a sniper's convention, when they can just check into a cheap motel under a false identity, looking like tourists, like proper assassins?

A(2): Multiple air-defence training exercises were used as cover to ensure the successful completion of the 9/11 attacks.

I knew 9/11. Christchurch, you're no 9/11.

I mean, look at this. You're comparing a mass shooting with assault weapons (one that you can actually go WATCH executed by a single man, at least the first target where 42 died and then the getaway ride) to the orchestration of... I don't have to summarize 9/11 here, now, do I? The wargames, live-fly exercises (not tabletop) specifically involved at least one plane into building drill (NRO). They had been doing planes-into-building drills for more than a year in advance. There were injects of false blips on civilian radar running as the attacks began. These seem to have had a function in the operation. A necessary one. In any case, they are proof of how ludicrous the "no one could have imagined" the 9/11 scenario, they indicate specific foreknowledge (along with many other items). In Christchurch, meanwhile, there is no necessity of a special forces exercise down the road to facilitate a man with the right guns doing what you can watch him actually do. Broadcasting it. To the applause of some. As an inspiration to more fascist heroes.

It is Bizarro logic.

Your version would be, had I ever said such a thing. Go read it again if necessary.

.

JackRiddler » 23 Mar 2019 19:03 wrote: I knew 9/11. Christchurch, you're no 9/11.

HA!!! One for the Quote thread!

Christchurch is not 9/11, correct, well spotted. This is progress. But of course I never suggested it was, not in the slightest. A is not the same as B, ever, because nothing is ever the same as anything else. But you are still the one who's conflating things, and cherrypicking things. Obviously air-defence ruses were completely unnecessary in NZ, because the weapons used in the NZ massacre were not aeroplanes, and however uebermenschlich Pudgyboy Tarrant imagines himself to be, he cannot in fact fly like a speeding bullet, or even float like a butterfly. (Only Muhammad Ali could do that.). Nor could any of the other three suspects who were arrested, because otherwise they wouldn't have been arrested.

IF training exercises were knowingly pre-planned to coincide with the NZ attacks, then obviously they had to be very different indeed from the knowingly pre-planned air-defence exercises of 9/11, because the nature and logistics of those two attacks were very different indeed. Obviously. This should all go without saying, but it turns out I am in fact having to say it. Such is life. ("Life, eh? Marvellous thing." -- S. Beckett, Molloy.)

I also mentioned Peter Power. You chose to ignore that. Do I really have to dig up what he revealed about the training exercises taking place during the London 7/7 attacks? It seems I do. (Teaser: No planes were involved there either, amazingly enough. Are we starting to see a pattern here? Can it be that air-defence ruses are not always required? Are different things different, but nonetheless comparable? Stay tuned for surprises.)

In other news, cows and bulls are both mammals, but this does not mean you can milk a bull (and you would be ill-advised to try.)

Entirely without sarcasm or irony:

Though the Authorities insist Tarrant carried out the massacre alone (this is now the official Official Account), we appear to be in agreement that the soundtrack on his GoPro head-camera film proves that he had at least one accomplice. Which would certainly explain why The Authorities have been suppressing that video with such unprecedented vehemence, speed, persistence and effectiveness.

MacCruiskeen wrote: ...we appear to be in agreement that the soundtrack on his GoPro head-camera film proves that he had at least one accomplice.

And no doubt we should expect the New Zealand authorities to spare no effort or expense in finding this accomplice, and we'll be hearing much more about the search for this accomplice via the media in coming days.

I took the liberty of deleting a parenthetical line about someone being someone's lapdog. I think I suspended someone after they said I was someone's lapdog. It's really annoying! Please let's not post to inflame or defame other posters. Let's all try to cut down a little. This topic deserves focus.

MacCruiskeen » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:30 am wrote:Elvis. you said you thought you'd read that Tarrant was married with two kids. That would put a very different complexion on things, if true. A brief and superficial search brings up no reports of any such thing. You may have been confused by the fact that he himself is one of two children. (He has a sister.)

The claim that he visited North Korea with that wife and those kids is very specific. If you can provide a link to back that up, please do so.

Wow, where did I get that? It's gone. And it took some looking to learn Tarrant "is not married."

she told 9News. . . “I don’t think girlfriends were on the agenda — he said getting married was too hard.”

But where did I read he traveled with a wife and kids? "It might have been removed"...

Sorry, Page Not Found

The page you are looking for, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-15/ ... 904744io8u cannot be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or be temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, check the spelling and use of upper-case and lower-case letters.
Click the Back button on your browser to try another link.
Go to the ABC Home Page and look for links to the information you want.
Use the ABC Online search engine:

"The gunman" headed to nonpersonhood? Wikipedia entry mentions "gunman" 30 times, "suspect" ten times and "Tarrant" appears just five times (not including the References). No separate Wikipedia page for The L. Gunman.

For context, here is the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, just this week appealing to neo-Nazi's.

Netanyahu: Hitler Didn't Want to Exterminate the Jews

We can accept that 'white power fascists' are capable of doing their own stuff and also accept that they are being funded and enabled by nation states, think-tanks and transnational bodies whose interests they serve. When dramatic instances of them doing their stuff feature many aspects which are completely beyond their scope to achieve, such as controlling the media narrative about their attacks, arranging military exercises either as cover or to help pull off said attacks or to travel freely to war zones without interference or interception, one should at least be prepared to note this.

Harvey » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:59 pm wrote:Nobody has been making unanchored speculation Jack. I agree with your scepticism, it is absolutely due. You just haven't made your case that others are insisting beyond the facts or that your view is more factual.

My "view" is not my view. It is a view from a helmet cam shot by a perpetrator who wished to show it to the world. It shows him murdering 42 people in one location, and then heading off to a second location, after which the signal ends. Eight other people died at the second location.

Some people here are not "insisting beyond the facts." It is more important that some people here are not dealing with certain facts. They are omitting. The current speculation about the Christchurch massacres is based mostly on omission. The omission is white power fascists.

You are not giving any consideration to the story that is not just official but the one told by the murderer himself. I asked you repeatedly above to talk about fascists, and tell us why it wouldn't be fascists.

I don't think you have touched that even once.

Do men who fit the description exist? Are there white power fascists with enough money, fanaticism, "vision," death wish, some guns, helmet cams, and soft targets full of unarmed people who didn't imagine that a motherfucker they didn't know was about to murder them for no reason?

Is there a reason this is ignored here?

.

I responded to you in advance, above.

When dramatic instances of them doing their stuff feature many aspects which are completely beyond their scope to achieve, such as [1] controlling the media narrative about their attacks, [2] arranging military exercises either as cover or to help pull off said attacks or [3] to travel freely to war zones without interference or interception, one should at least be prepared to note this.

None of this has happened here. The first two, the only ones that matter really, in no fashion.

1. The media narrative has proceeded in unremarkable fashion. The perpetrator was able to "control" much of it because of the video and the manifesto. The manifesto even explains the PR strategy followed, which is kind of obvious. This required no hidden strings. State and corporate media responses have been predictable. Including the attempted banning of the video.

2. No "military exercises" whatsoever were necessary to help pull off said attacks. None. In fact, the livestreamed video is a planned demonstration of how one can do such an attack oneself. It is not surprising that this can be done. It has been done before. But in this case, you can watch it.

2a. If a comic book convention had happened in Christchurch the same day, it would also have had no relation. This is why those who want to highlight the "coincidence" of a special forces exercise happening nearby have to actually present a context, both
i. for why it would be necessary to the attack (it is NOT, full stop, and no case has been made for why it would be). and
ii. for why it is truly amazing if this happened coincidentally (i.e., figure out what the odds really are, because they may not be so amazing). This point is so simple that it has sadly caused conniptions of sophistry and strawmanning in my old friend MacC, when a simple concession would do.

3. That's interesting to investigate. It is prior to the attack. Until you investigate it, it would not be dispositive as to any version of the attack. One would have to investigate to make any claim from it. Or one can pull any country or organization out of one's ass since it could be consistent with a lot of different things. Soldiers of fortune, jihadis, freelance journalists, Russian spies, spies of any country, etc.: many manage to enter war zones. Anarchist volunteers manage to find their way into Kobane without special help from a spy agencies.

Now. What about these contextual matters?

4. It's easy for a white guy with money to acquire a massive surplus of the kind of gear, training and electronics used in the attack.

5. There are people who automatically engage in denial regarding the prevalence of racism and the existence of fascist movements. We see that on this board.

6. Said movements glorify individual heroic violence, engage in it often, and without a doubt include a sufficient number of potential violent mass-murderers to easily explain the number of mass shootings and terrorism attributed to fascist mass murderers. (Does this mean all acts so attributed are covered automatically? No. But it means it is the default hypothesis until genuinely contrary evidence is provided. "Well, it could always be something else" is not evidence.)

7. There are meanwhile people who automatically, reflexively, always, apply a simplistic global conspiracy template, usually involving Israel, to every single act of retail terrorism in the world, and who on this thread never discuss why the last two points do not apply here as self-evident default hyphotheses for explaining the attack.

Prediction: As usual, neither you nor others who effectively deny the overwhelming evidence of a fascist mass murder by an individual with a fascist exterminationist ideology and working from within fascist networks -- as has happened on many other occasions -- will address any of these points, as I address yours by the number.

.

Just to be clear, I offer support and express admiration for contributions with which I strongly agree and/or which I admire -- particularly when presented by individuals with whom I've had serious differences in the past -- precisely because I know how lonely it can feel to spend a lot of time spelling out detailed and articulate rebuttals to increasingly harsh (and all too often purposeful) misinterpretations, occasionally by people whom that individual used to be be able to count on as being solidly in his ideological camp (perhaps even former "lapdogs"?!). It's a way to tell the individual -- and those reading these threads -- that they aren't alone in their thinking; that, in this instance, they speak for ME, as well.

Jerky