New Zealand Terrorist Attack – The Israeli Connection — Rebel Voice

The atrocities that took place in Christchurch, New Zealand, when an Australian terrorist murdered 50 Muslims during prayer has been widely reported. Many reasons for the killings have been mooted, but little attention has been given to the Israel connection. The terrorist who committed the attacks, and there is a strongly held belief that he […]

via New Zealand Terrorist Attack – The Israeli Connection — Rebel Voice

Advertisements

On My Visit to New Zealand: Can Christchurch Heal Our Collective Wounds?

By Ramzy Baroud
Source

3D1A5A51 4689 4737 BED8 F4A52C963AE2 994cb

I visited the city of Christchurch on May 23, 2018, as part of a larger speaking tour in New Zealand that also took me to Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton and Dunedin.

New Zealand is an exceptional country, different from other countries that are often lumped under the generalized designation of the ‘western world.’ Almost immediately after my arrival to Auckland, New Zealand’s largest and most populous city, I was struck by the overt friendliness, hospitality and diversity.

This is not to downgrade the ongoing struggles in the country, lead among them being the campaign for land rights as championed by the Maori people, the original inhabitants of New Zealand; but, indeed, there was something refreshingly different about New Zealanders.

Just the fact that the Maori language, “Te Reo”, is one of the three official languages in the country, the others being English and Sign Language, immediately sets New Zealand apart from other colonized spaces, where indigenous peoples, cultures, languages and rights are, to various extents, inconsequential.

It is due to the empowered position of the indigenous Maori culture, that New Zealand is, compared to other countries, more inclusive and more accepting of refugees and immigrants. And that is likely why New Zealand – and Christchurch, in particular – was chosen as a target for the terrorist attacks carried out by an Australian national on March 15.

The Australian terrorist – whose name will not be mentioned here in honor of a call made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, as not to celebrate the infamy of the senseless murderer – wanted to send a message that immigrants, particularly Muslims, are not safe, not even in New Zealand.

But his attempt backfired. Not only will he live “the rest of his life in isolation in prison”, as promised by New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, who was speaking at the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) emergency conference in Turkey on March 22, but the horrific crime has brought New Zealanders even closer together.

There is something sorrowful, yet beautiful, about Christchurch. This small, welcoming city, located on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island, was devastated on February 22, 2011 by a massive earthquake that killed 185 people and destroyed much of the town.

Last May, I spoke at Christchurch’s Cardboard Cathedral, an innovative structure that was built as a temporary replacement to the Anglican Cathedral that was destroyed in the earthquake.

In my talk, I commended the people for their beautiful church, and for their own resilience in the face of hardship. The diversity, openness and solidarity of the audience reflected the larger reality throughout the city, in fact, throughout the country. For me, Christchurch was not a place of tragedy, but a source of hope.

My audience, which also included members of the Muslim community, some coming from Al Noor Mosque – the main target of the recent attack – listened and engaged me as I argued that the genuine authentic voices of ordinary people should be placed at the core of our understanding of the past, and our hope for a better future. While the focus of my talk was the history of the Palestinian people, the message exceeded the struggle for freedom in Palestine into the struggle and rights of all indigenous groups, guided by such uplifting experiences as that of the Maori people of New Zealand itself.

I also had the chance to meet with Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, among other MPs. It was strange to be in a position where solidarity from politicians came across as genuine as that of the unconditional solidarity of ordinary activists – once again, highlighting the uniqueness of New Zealand’s progressive politics and leadership.

Experiencing that myself, it was no surprise to see the outpouring of genuine love and support by Prime Minister Ardern and many members of her cabinet and parliament following the mosque attack. The fact that she, along with numerous women throughout the country, wore symbolic head-scarves in order to send a message to Muslims that they are not alone, while countless thousands of New Zealanders mourned the victims who perished in Al Noor and Linwood mosques, was unprecedented in the recent history of Western-Muslim relationship.

In fact, on Friday March 22, when all of New Zealand’s TV and radio stations transmitted the call for Muslim prayer, and as Muslims and non-Muslims rallied together in a massive display of human solidarity while mourning their dead, for a moment, all Muslims became New Zealanders and all New Zealanders became Muslims.

At the end of my talk, a group of Muslims from the mosque approached me with a gift, a box of dates to break my fast, as it was the month of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting and repentance for Muslims worldwide. With much gratitude I took the box of dates and promised to visit Al Noor when I return to the country in the future.

A few months later, as I watched the horrific images on television of the terrorist attack that struck this peaceful city, I immediately thought of the Cardboard Cathedral, of the beautiful solidarity of the Maori, of the numerous embraces of so many New Zealanders, and, of the kindly Muslims and the box of dates.

I also understood why the undeserving-to-be named terrorist chose to strike Christchurch, and the underlying message he wanted to send to Muslims, immigrants, New Zealanders and all of those who champion peaceful co-existence and tolerance worldwide.

But he failed. In fact, all other foot soldiers of racism and hate will continue to fail because tragedy often unites us. Collective pain helps us see each other as human beings first, where our differences, however great, can never be enough to justify or even explain why 3-year-old Mucad Ibrahim had to die, along with 49 other, beautiful and innocent people.

However, one can be comforted by the Maori saying, “Ka mate te kāinga tahi, ka ora te kāinga rua” – “when one house dies, the second lives”. It means that good things can always emerge from misfortune.

It will take much time for Christchurch, and the whole of New Zealand, to heal from this terrible misfortune. But the strength, will and courage of so many communities should be enough to turn a horrific terrorist act into an opportunity to heal our collective wounds, not just in New Zealand, but the world over.

Christchurch Attack: Israeli Mossad’s Years of Espionage Activities in the City

By Daniel Haqiqatjou
Source

Mossad Christchurch 463f5

The massacre of Muslims this past Friday in Christchurch, New Zealand left me in a daze of anger and grief. Muslims are being gunned down and bombed all over the world and little is being done about it.

For this post, I want to compile some of the oddities with the details of the shooting. Things are not what they seem.

The below is broken down into sections for ease of reading.

The Manifesto: No Jews?

Tarrant allegedly wrote a manifesto called The Great Replacement explaining his motivations for killing Muslims. The problem is, the 73-page document reads like it was written by someone who is trying very hard to pretend to be a White Nationalist.

What do I mean by this?

Well, whoever wrote the document claims that he was mainly influenced by the internet.

“From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?” the murderer responds, “The internet, of course. You will not find the truth anywhere else.”

The influence of internet meme culture is apparent in the manifesto and even in Tarrant’s horrifying video. White nationalists online immediately recognized the use of memes. In the video, for example, he says, “Subscribe to PewDiePie,” which is a white nationalist meme referring to popular white Youtuber PewDiePie, which trolls on 4chan and elsewhere envision (ironically) as a fascist neo-Nazi leader.

But there is one glaring inconsistency.

If you ever visit places on the internet frequented  and owned by White Nationalists, such as 4chan, 8chan, Daily Stormer, or Gab, one immediate, indubitable fact hits you in the face:

These people hate Jews.

More than anyone else, White Nationalists hate Jews and are not afraid of expressing it with thousands of different memes. More than Blacks, more than Latinos, more than Muslims, Jews are at the top of the hate list. This is because White Nationalists believe that Jews are engaging in a genocidal project to destroy the White race. According to the White Nationalists, Jews are doing this primarily by pushing for immigration. As high birth-rate immigrants flood White nations and non-Whites and Whites intermix, eventually the White race will become a minority and will, within a few generations, cease to exist.

This, according to the White Nationalists on the internet, is a Jewish plot that Jews have engineered through their pushing of pro-immigration legislation, their control of media, etc.

What is bizarre about Tarrant’s alleged manifesto is that he says a great deal about this plot. He rails against immigration, fertility rates, and “White genocide.” But he doesn’t mention who the supposed plotters are. Why? Why is Tarrant following the White Nationalist script to the letter but doesn’t mention Jews once in the entire 73 pages?

Well, actually, he does mention Jews just once:

“A jew living in israel is no enemy of mine, so long as they do not seek to subvert or harm my people.”

The statement is especially strange since, according to the dominant White Nationalist discourse, this is exactly what Jews are engaged in: harming white people, genociding them. In fact, White Nationalists often bemoan the fact that Jews have Israel as their Jewish ethno-state while allegedly preventing Whites from having their own White ethno-states.

Passages like this stand out:

Why attack muslims if all high fertility immigrants are the issue?
“They are the most despised group of invaders in the West, attacking them receives the greatest level of support.” He ranted about climate change, saying that by killing “the invaders” he could “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”

White Nationalists reserve these kinds of statements for Jews, not Muslims. For White Nationalists, Muslims are just low IQ pawns used by Jews, but pose no serious threat on their own.

So why does an alleged White Nationalist who is so concerned about immigration and preserving the White race completely ignore the biggest, most prominent component of White Nationalist discourse?

This is like an alleged fan of the 90s Chicago Bulls writing a detailed 70-page tribute to the team’s amazing achievements in that decade without once mentioning Michael Jordan. If someone were to read such a tribute, the lack of mentioning Jordan would be more than a glaring omission. It would seem like the writer were deliberately trying to avoid him.

The same thing with this manifesto. Something doesn’t add up.

The Manifesto: American or Australian Spelling Conventions?

Another thing I noticed while reading the document is that the author switches between English spelling conventions haphazardly. At times, his spelling is consistent with the American convention and other times with Australian. Tarrant himself is Australian, so we would expect him to use Australian conventions, or at the very least, we would expect him to be consistent in using one convention or another. But oddly this is not the case.

For example, we read about Australian spelling:

Unlike British English, which is split between -ise and -ize in words such as organise and realise, with -ize favoured by the Oxford English Dictionary and -ise listed as a variant, -ize is rare in Australian English and designated as a variant by the Macquarie Dictionary.

Yet the -ize variant, which is standard in American English, is dominant in the manifesto.

The words using this spelling are: Balkanize, energized, colonize, radicalized, globalized, industrialized, pulverized, commoditized, trivialized, strategize, realize, utilized, finalize, destabilize, deracialized, deculturalized, polarizing.

If you check these words in the official dictionary of Australian English, MacQuarie’s, you can see that the -ise spelling is standard throughout.

manifesto3 bcc6f

 

Another example of American spelling is the use of the word “practice.” In Australian spelling, when used as a noun, practice is spelled with -ice, but when it is used as a verb, such as in practised or practising, the -ise ending is used. Again, MacQuarie’s Dictionary can be consulted to see this distinction.

Yet, in the manifesto, this Australian convention is not followed. The -ice version of practice is used in the verbal form, such as when he writes on page 62:

“This is a tactic practiced not only on the French people, but on all the peoples of Europe, effectively destroying the nations identity at its core and smashing apart all bonds which a successful, unified nation is built upon.”

And also on page 69:

“In the United States, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the cult of the individual has been practiced for the longest time and with the deepest devotion.”

Now someone might respond to this by saying, well, maybe Tarrant was educated in the US. Maybe he had American teachers when he was first learning how to read and write.

This might be a plausible explanation if it weren’t for the fact that the manifesto also uses Australian conventions for other words like: labour, rumours, colour, honours, endeavours. Also words like scepticism are in the manifesto, which in the American convention is spelled with a ‘k’.

Strangest of all is the case of “favor” and “favour” which are spelled in both the Australian and American versions in the document.

Why would we find these kinds of inconsistencies? Switching between spelling conventions is not something that happens out of sloppiness or haste. The manifesto has minimal spelling errors and the grammar is not too bad.

Perhaps one explanation is he just copy and pasted snippets from the internet and didn’t bother to standardize the spellings throughout. Perhaps. But the psychopaths who write these manifestos put a lot of time and care into their work. They are obsessed with carefully constructing what they hope will be read by millions who they want to inspire to follow their murderous footsteps. The author of this manifesto indicates having such an obsessive personality:

Q: Is this your complete writings and views?

Unfortunately not, there was a much larger work written, roughly 240 pages long that spoke on many issues and went into much depth, but in a moment of unbridled self criticism, I deleted the entire work and started again, two weeks before the attack itself.

I was left with a short period of time to create a new work and only leave my views half finished. I will let my actions speak for themselves.

Would such a self-critical writer resort to copy pasting passages into his magnum opus and overlook numerous spelling irregularities?

Perhaps.

Multiple Shooters

From the beginning of the news reporting, multiple shooters were reported by witnesses and, ultimately, multiple individuals were arrested and even appeared in court.

The Washington Post reports:

Police named Tarrant the primary suspect in what was the deadliest attack in New Zealand’s history — and one of the worst cases of right-wing terrorism in years — after the 28 year-old Australian allegedly stormed two mosques during mid-day prayers on Friday and mowed down dozens of huddling and fleeing worshipers while he streamed the killing live over the internet with a helmet-mounted camera.

Two others have been arrested in connection with the shootings: A second man, 18-year old Daniel John Burrough, was scheduled to appear in court later Saturday and face charges of inciting racial hostility or ill-will. A third accomplice remained unidentified.

They also reported that the court hearing for Tarrant was out of the ordinary:

During [Tarrant’s] hearing, which was closed to the public by Judge Paul Keller in the interest of safety — an unusual move for New Zealand courts — Tarrant did not enter a plea to the murder charge.

Yet the manifesto is written as if it were only written by one person acting alone. The self-asked questions are asked in reference to one person, e.g., “Do you carry out the attack for fame?” And the answers are also in the singular, e.g.,  “But the aftershock from my actions will ripple for years to come.”

Early police reports mentioned three active shooters.

Security analysts were also quoted on Friday saying that, based on the scope of the attack, multiple parties were involved:

3:53pm: Security Analyst Paul Buchanan says he has seen the gunman’s manifesto and the shooting is “clearly a case of a white supremacist”.

He says the shooter would likely have had support in carrying out the attack.

Later news reports mention two other “associates” being arrested along with Tarrant:

Two other people have been arrested, described as the terrorist’s “associates”, while a third who was earlier apprehended is not connected to the attacks.

If all these reports weren’t enough, there is also video footage of what is claimed to be two shooters other than Tarrant:

Was Tarrant acting alone? Or were there other shooters involved?

Christchurch

If this mass killing of 49 Muslims wasn’t carried out by a White Nationalist acting alone, who was responsible? Who would benefit from this? No need to speculate too much for now, as details are still turning up. But some interesting facts about Christchurch are worth citing.

The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, is known to have had espionage activities in the city.

New Zealand Massacre: The Hate That Australia Produced

Astute News

“We stand here and condemn absolutely the attack that occurred today by an extremist, right-wing, violent terrorist,”Australian Prime MinisterScott Morrisontold a news conference, as his country grapples with the fact that one of its own murdered 50Muslim worshippers in neighboring New Zealand.

The kind of anti-Muslim views espoused by politicians and pundits are indistinguishable from those disseminated by violent far-right groups

While Morrison should be commended for calling out and identifying exactly who and what the Christchurch mosque mass murderer is – “a right wing, violent terrorist”– Australia’s political leader and his conservative party is responsible for the mainstreaming of the kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric that once existed only in memes found in the far-right blogosphere.

Bearin mind that Morrison, as then opposition immigration spokesman in 2011, urged the shadow cabinet to leverage growing anxieties voters held about “Muslim immigration”,”Muslims in Australia”,and the “inability” of Muslims to integrate into the…

View original post 1,509 more words

Calling The Christchurch Terrorist a “Troll” is Unconscious Islamophobia

By Adam Garrie
Source

If people think that terrorists like Daesh and al-Qaeda do not have various internal code words and even unique dialects understood only by fellow extremists – think again. If people think that terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Syria do not use internet memes, videos and online discussion threads to promote their brand of hatred among the young – think again. If people furthermore do not think that Daesh and al-Qaeda thrive by manipulating a perverse shadow pop culture – think again.

Of course, most people realise that Daesh and al-Qaeda are as much about black web based propaganda as they are about committing acts of mass terrorism and as such, Daesh and al-Qaeda supporters are never called “trolls”, “shitposters” or purveyors of “irony”.

And yet, the white supremacist, anti-Muslim terrorist of Christchurch infamy has been described in  mainstream liberal western media as someone being “ironic”, being a “troll” and being a “shitposter”. All of these terms tend to refer to those who use an online presence to either exaggerate their own beliefs or parody the extreme beliefs of others in order to get an emotional reaction from those who do not realise that crude satire, morose hyperbole and elementary pranksterism are at play.

But no actual comedians (however crude) can be considered terrorists, even if they push the boundaries of free speech in order to make provocative points. And yet, the terrorist in Christchurch was no “troll” or  comical figure – he was a died in the wool terrorist, a cold blooded killer of the variety that in a different ideological context would have been a killer in the ranks of terror groups like Daesh, FETO and al-Qaeda.

Even if the Christchurch terrorist was being sarcastic during parts of his manifesto, this only goes to prove his a priori shamelessness which itself is substantiated by his ex post facto lack of remorse as has been documented by lawyers in New Zealand. This does not make him a social media troll but places him among the ranks of serial killers and Daesh terrorists who believe that their acts of violence elevate them to the level of holy figures when in reality they are nothing but wicked mass murderers.

While it could have been expected that those on the neo-fascist right would try and whitewash the Christchurch terrorist as a “troll” or a “shitposter”, the fact that so-called respectable media personalities have also done so, demonstrates that even among people who would publicly reject Islamophobia if given the chance, an unconscious Islamophobia is so pervasive in western societies that seemingly “mainstream” figures are de facto minimising the terrorist’s crime. They are doing so by relating the terrorist to crude online comedy. By contrast, the ridiculous things that Daesh supporters say online are uniformly labelled terrorist propaganda rather than “shitposting” or “trolling”.

While the western far-right have reacted predictably to the atrocity in Christchurch, liberals continue to get away with closet Islamophobia by providing a pseudo-intellectual explanation for terrorism that is nothing more than a verbose version of the extremism vocalised by the likes of self-described right wing troll Milo Yiannopoulos who wasted no time in trying to minimise the terrorist atrocity. The difference between mainstream liberals and self-identified trolls of the far-right is merely in the subtlety of the language that is deployed. The overall message from both the western far-right and from liberals is that white anti-Islamic terrorists deserve being copiously analysed and therefore justified through either conscious or unconscious subterfuge, whilst those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam (Daesh for example) deserve unqualified condemnation.

The reality is that all terrorism deserves only condemnation. The ideologies behind terror attacks might be useful at galvanising and recruiting useful idiots to commit horrific acts, but any decent member of any society ought to realise that terrorism has no religion, no race, no ethnicity and no singular ideology other than a generic ideology which permits and validates violence against innocent people.

Liberals in the west continue to expose themselves as unconsciously sympathetic to the same factions that are openly praised by the western fascist fringe. In the same way that a hyena is to be less feared than a snake, liberals have once again demonstrated that when it comes to normalising Islamophobia, they are the undisputed champions of hatred.

%d bloggers like this: