crows

Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 06.12.19: The Tarrant trial

Of course, there can't be a fair trial. You have to remember that this is all a drama, and that the "trial" is therefore no more than the last act in the drama. The aim of the entire exercise is to put the stamp of reality on illusion, and to ensure that the "live stream's" many anomalies do not become common knowledge. The only questions that interest me are: (1) Will the "survivors" of the "massacre", who have told many lies in their various interviews, repeat those lies, under oath, in court, and thereby commit perjury? and (2) Will the defence team fail to challenge any of the testimony of these "survivors", despite the blatant falsehood of it?

If this website - Islamic State Watch - were a conscientious website, it would also be asking these questions - and looking at some of the analysis of what really happened (and didn't happen) on March 15. Instead, it does its best to portray all Muslims in the worst possible light, without reference to what might be described as the bigger picture. Yes, the Muslims have a lot to answer for. But at the end of the day - as far as Christchurch is concerned - they have done little more than volunteer their services as crisis actors. Ultimately, neither they nor Tarrant is responsible for the charade that has been characterized as "New Zealand's darkest day", and which was specifically designed to facilitate and expedite a wholesale rollback of civil liberties.

Collapse )
crows

Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 09.11.19: More about Christchurch

Thanks. I read most of the "manifesto" as soon as it became available, and still have access to it. I would have studied it more closely if it had appeared to be Tarrant's work. But it seemed, to me, to be largely, perhaps entirely, the work of others. After all, how likely is it that a member of the "PewDiePie generation" would begin his opus by quoting a poem by Dylan Thomas?

The attempt to "sanitize" Christchurch Mosque is interesting. I was well aware of its "history", and knew something of the split between the Salafists and those of a more liberal disposition. So when my wife came home and said, "There's been a shooting at Christchurch Mosque", I initially thought they must have started shooting each other!

Then, like everyone else, I believed it was a genuine terrorist attack. I even made a donation to the "injured" and "bereaved". But after many years in journalism, I knew that, before I came to a firm conclusion, I should scout around for a counter-narrative. I soon found it - and was reasonably sure, after about a week of research, that the attacks were a psyop, and that, as in the case of the "Boston Marathon bombing", there probably weren't any real victims. Today, I think all the Muslims involved in the event are either lying or keeping quiet about what they know. In one prominent case, I can prove that the person concerned is lying.

Collapse )
crows

Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 09.11.19: Attack on the Qur'an

There is also this:

5:66 If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and what was revealed to them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above and from below. There are some among them who are on the right course; but there are many among them who do nothing but evil.

Khan, Maulana Wahiduddin. Quran: A Simple English Translation (Goodword ! Koran) . Goodword Books. Kindle Edition.

You have to consider the message in its entirety, while keeping in mind the age in which it was set down. Delve into any ancient scripture, and you will soon find passages that are, on a superficial reading, repugnant to the modern mind. That's why we have something called exegesis: the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, ideally conducted under the supervision of a competent scholar. Such a person will advise against polemic argument, i.e. self-righteous finger-pointing at the "other", as this does nothing to improve the human condition.

At this critical juncture in history, we need to pull together and identify the real enemy - globalism. This is the deconstruction of the nation state, and thus any notion of national culture or sovereignty, through policies of open borders and mass migration. (The latter is actually people trafficking on a monstrous scale.) The aim seems to be the creation of a one-world government run by a shadowy, supranational elite, which will rule through intimidation and surveillance.

With reference to https://islamicstatewatch.com/2019/10/31/anti-hate-speech-campaigner-butt-elected-to-palmerston-north-council/comment-page-1/#comment-1145

crows

Facebook: 23.10.19: 'Christchurch mosque attacks'

"But one mad AUSSIE commits murder in New Zealand..."

Here we go again - accepting, without question, the official narrative of what happened in Christchurch. There are at least two websites that totally demolish this. Why is finding them such a difficult task for New Zealanders?

I think I know some of the Muslims who "survived" the so-called terrorist attacks. I certainly know the imam of Al Noor, Gamal Fouda, because I was once a member of his congregation.

Fouda says he hid in the minbar (pulpit), and observed everything that happened through a peephole. Absolute bunkum! (1) The minbar isn't big enough for a grown man to hide in; (2) The shooter's "live stream" shows no one hiding in the minbar, and (3) The minbar doesn't have a peephole in it.

Have you ever heard of a smoke-and-mirrors magic show? Basically, that's what we had in Christchurch. And all you suckers have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

crows

Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 16.10.19: 'Christchurch mosque attacks'

Where is the evidence that anyone died in the "Christchurch mosque attacks"? The alleged shooter's "live stream"  is clearly a fake - a bizarre fantasy for the post-truth age. The two heaps of "bodies", presumably dummies, are already in place when the alleged shooter enters  Al-Noor's prayer hall, apparently firing blanks with a CO2-powered replica airgun. The "bodies", which conveniently lie face-down, don't move as "shots" hit them. One sees no horrific wounds - of the type that would inevitably be inflicted by an AR-15. Meanwhile, no damage is done to the mosque walls, despite the wild "firing". I could go on. There are so many glaring anomalies in the video, one wonders how anyone could take it seriously.

There is, of course, the possibility that this bogus terrorist attack masks a real incident in which some people DID lose their lives. If the video was made the day before (i.e. on March 14), as some analysts suggest, this theory might have greater credibility. But don't hold your breath while waiting for a genuine investigation.

crows

VJM Publishing: 29.09.19: Tarrant used an airgun

" . . . [Tarrant] chimped out with a semi-automatic rifle at the Al-Noor Mosque in Christchurch. . . "

No, he didn't use a semi-automatic rifle. He used a replica airgun, of the type produced by Replica Airguns. (See their website.) These "weapons" are made to look realistic, but are actually little more than toys. They are powered by a canister of CO2 that fits into the stock, and fire paint balls, pellets or blanks. I think Tarrant fired blanks. That's why, when he fired at a "body" (actually a mannequin) from only a few feet away, the "shot" did no more than ruffle the clothes or make the hair fly.

Interestingly, the mannequin in the gutter outside the mosque somehow lost her head after being "shot" by Tarrant.  A later photograph, which I have on my website, shows Muslim convert Nathan Smith sitting beside the "body" and supposedly comforting it, while cops stand around. But the mannequin's head, which is clearly visible in the so-called live stream, has gone, and we see only a metal or plastic tube protruding from the torso. It's all quite bizarre.

Collapse )
crows

Islamic State Watch New Zealand: 27.09.19: Islam is right about women

“Men are to rub dirt or water…” This is incorrect. The substance to be used for wudu (ritual purification), if water is not available, is not “dirt” but clean sand.

Of course, all the above instructions – and many more that are not listed – sound absurd, if not outrageous, to the modern mind. But they are exactly what one would expect to find in the scriptures of that period from that part of the world. Judaism is similar in having all sorts of pernickety rules and regulations. The genius of Paul, who is the real founder of Christianity, lay in his recognition that none of this would work in the western, Hellenistic world. Hence his insistence that salvation was to be achieved through faith, not through adherence to “the Law”. Yet even Paul could write: “…women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as even the Law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home" (1 Corinthians 14:33b-35).

What we need today is an exegesis that recognizes the value of scripture while accepting that, on a superficial level, much of it is no longer applicable.

With reference to https://islamicstatewatch.com/2019/09/27/islam-is-right-about-women/comment-page-1/#comment-952 

crows

Facebook: 13.09.19: Honor killings

Honor killings are extra-judicial killings, and are therefore murder. They are not permitted in any society, Islamic or otherwise. As I have already pointed out, such killings have nothing to do with Islam, just as "bride burnings" have nothing to do with Hinduism. The victims are almost always women, who are killed (or mutilated) because they have failed to live up to the expectations of the family, clan, or tribe, by having a secret boyfriend, refusing to accept an arranged marriage, or failing to please a demanding mother-in-law.

Different interpretations of the Qur'an rarely lead to conflict. Not even the Sunni-Shia divide arose as a result of doctrinal disagreements. It was a political dispute over who should succeed the Prophet that led to the split. The Shias maintained the succession should stay in the family, which is why, to this day, they call themselves "Ahl al-Bayt" ("People of the House").

The Muslim belief is that all people are born Muslim, but sometimes adopt other beliefs because of their upbringing. That is why non-Muslims who embrace Islam often refer to themselves as "reverts", rather than as "converts". Muslims, with the exception of takfiris, are generally well-disposed towards non-Muslims, except when they perceive the latter to be hostile.

Collapse )