Jacinda Mania Kills Again.

On Friday March 15th (15/3/19) mass shootings occurred at two Mosques within the city of Christchurch in New Zealand.

New Zealand is located close the the international date line. So this occurred overnight in Europe and in the late evening of Thursday March 14th (14/3/19) in the US.

A problem familiar to those who were attending the 2018 Winter Olympics in the Republic of Korea (RoK/South). When the February 14th 2018 (14/2/18) Parklands mass shooting occurred in the US.

I can't help but note there is a Parklands district of Christchurch. Right next to Bottle Lake.

New Zealand is currently governed by the Labour Party. Under Prime Minister Jacinda Arden.

Prime Minister Arden is very much in the "Progressive Democrat" school of politicians.

A grouping which includes former US President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. These Progressive Democrats are also widely represented amongst the Remoaner grouping in the current British debate over Brexit.

The main mantra of the Progressive Democrats is that; "It's not what you do which matters. All that matters is how you make people feel." 

As a result they nurture a cult of personality around their leaders. They then promote identity politics as a way to divide the electorate into different warring tribes. Presenting themselves as the only way to protect the warring tribes from each other.

Prime Minister Arden is most famous as the second national leader to give birth whilst in office and the second national leader to take maternity leave while in office. Although she'll try and convince you that she was the first.

So Jacinda Arden's main achievement as New Zealand's Prime Minister has been not turning up to work as New Zealand's Prime Minister for six weeks.

Details of today's shooting are still emerging.

We know for a fact that 49 people have been killed. However five people were initially arrested but one of those has already been cleared of any involvement and released. While one person has been charged.

It seems though that the person charged was the gunman. It also seems that he was motivated by an extreme anti-Muslim agenda. Possibly a far-right or Neo-Nazi agenda.

As such it appears highly likely that this shooting was motivated, at least in part, by the current global furore surrounding what to do with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) recently taken prisoner by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

This is a topic that I've been delayed in addressing directly for a while now.

Partly because it is an extremely complex topic. Military law is every bit a complex as criminal law. Criminal law is a topic people spend their entire professional lives on. Even without the added complication of having to work between different national jurisdictions.

This week I've been especially delayed by Britain's continuing Brexit saga. A particularly bitter irony because it was Britain that set this fire. Through its focus on the case of Shamima Begum.

It must be said that the response by western journalists and politicians, particularly the Progressive Democrats, has been outrageous.

Astonishingly offensive to every right thinking person. Particularly Muslims.

For years Islamist terrorism has been dominated by Al Qaeda. Their strategy has been based around dividing society into three distinct spaces;

There is the white space. This is populated by ideologically 'pure' Muslims who agree with Al Qaeda. There is the black space. This is populated by the infidels, essentially non-Muslims. Then there is the grey space. This is an area where Muslims and non-Muslims peacefully coexist.

The purpose of Al Qaeda terrorism has been to destroy this grey space. Specifically by carrying out attacks so heinous the provoke non-Muslims to retaliate against Muslims. The idea being that this will force Muslims to retreat into the white space, joining Al Qaeda.

So whenever there has been an Al Qaeda attack western politicians have moved to counter the backlash. By coming out and declaring that Al Qaeda do not represent Muslims or Islam.

That's never been quite true.

Al Qaeda represent as very extreme interpretation of Islam. One which is considered abhorrent and abnormal by around 99% of the World's Muslims. However there is an ideological consistency to Al Qaeda's beliefs which means that it is a part of Islam. Although not one I can say I agree with.

In this sense ISIL are very different from Al Qaeda. ISIL's theological justifications for their actions read as though someone has simply opened up the Wikipedia page on Islam. Then cut & paste completely random phrases into a press release.

So when we say that ISIL are not Muslims it isn't some half-truth or propaganda trick. It is simply a statement of fact. ISIL are not Muslims.

The biggest backlash against ISIL has come from within Muslim communities themselves.

For example the UK claimed that Shamima Begum was a citizen of the Muslim majority nation of Bangladesh. Bangladesh's response to this was to strongly deny that she was either a Muslim or one their citizens. Completely washing their hands of her.

I can't help but note that the Bangladesh cricket team are currently in Christchurch. Preparing for a test match against the New Zealand cricket team.

Pakistan, as another majority Muslim nation, recently seems to have gone to extreme measures. To suggest to the west that if its politicians and journalists cannot behave responsibly then perhaps a broadcast ban needs to be imposed on the likes of Shamima Begum.

A particularly offensive thing western journalists and politicians have done in relation to Shamima Begum and other captured ISIL members is to refer to them as; "Jihadis." Or "Jihadi" brides.

Within Islam "Jihad" means; "Struggle." For the overwhelming majority of Muslims it refers to the internal struggle against sin. It is only to extremists such as Al Qaeda and ISIL that it means an external, armed struggle against non-believers.

Even the Prophet himself returned from a battle and told his followers; "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad." By which he meant the major internal struggle against sin.

By referring to captured ISIL members as; "Jihadis" western journalists are legitimising their violent acts as somehow part of Islam. Going against almost the entire Muslim world who have told them, time and time again, not to use the term.

The other astonishingly offensive thing that western politicians and journalists have done is claim that captured ISIL members should not be punished for their crime. Despite those crimes being amongst the absolute worst the modern world has ever seen.

Progressive Democrats in particular do this simply to further their own agenda.

They've convinced a certain tribe that the World is full of a dangerous other - "Islamaphobes" in this case. So now they're trying to show that only they are prepared to protect that tribe. By being benevolent and helping the captured ISIL members escape justice.

Although this may win them votes with one particular tribe in doing this politicians are sending a much clearer message to everyone else in society.

That message is that the government/state is not prepared to protect you. So you must protect yourself from the Muslim invaders.

This is exactly the message that Al Qaeda is trying to send through their attacks. It is exactly the objective they are trying to achieve.

I am the person that can tell you all about Al Qaeda's ideology and strategy.

I am also the person who can assure that the overwhelming majority of the people been fighting and dying to defeat ISIL in Syria and Iraq are Muslims.

In writing about the different units involved in the war against ISIL I could point out which ones are Muslim. That though is the rule rather than the exception. So it's about as redundant as me point out which ones of them are people.

Despite every time I hear a political or journalist claim captured ISIL members should not be punished it makes my Islamaphobia rise. To the point of wanting to do violence to random Muslims.

You really have to worry about what it's doing to be people who don't have my experience of living and working amongst Muslims.

Prime Minister Arden has already rushed to label today's attacks as; "Terrorism."

In a vapid attempt to appeal to voters who demand to know why white gunmen are not labelled terrorist. Something which itself is an attempt to divide the electorate into warring tribes. Warring tribes that only the likes of Prime Minister Arden can protect each other from.

In practical terms labelling something as terrorism or not is almost completely pointless.

The purpose of criminal investigation/trial is to determine whether a person has committed a series of specific, individual acts. Acts, such as killing someone, which are expressly forbidden by law. Once you've proved that someone has committed the specific acts why they've done it really doesn't matter.

Despite all the TV cop shows you'd be surprised how little Courts actually care about someones' motive for committing a crime.

Labelling something as terrorism can actually be massively counter-productive.

There is an old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This is entirely true.

During the Second World War the allied powers established an extensive network of resistance cells. To fight a guerrilla war across Nazi occupied Europe and North Africa.

Amongst the allied nations these resistance fighters are treated as heroes. However if you read the contemporary Nazi reports of their actions they are described simply as terrorists.

So while labelling someone as a terrorist may smear them in the eyes of your supporters it may well elevate them to hero status in the eyes of their supporters.

A prime example of this is the 1981 Hunger Strike by Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) prisoners. Led by Bobby Sands.

The PIRA prisoners claim was that they were freedom fighters battling against the oppressive British occupation of Northern Ireland. As such they wanted special prisoner status. Essentially to be recognised as terrorists.

The position of the British government was that; "Crime is crime is crime, it is not political.” Treating the men as common criminals in order to deny them the legitimacy of be called terrorists.

In the end Bobby Sands and all of the 10 hunger strikers starved themselves to death. In order to be recognised as terrorists.

So I'm of the opinion that if you want to be recognised as a terrorist you need to go a hell of a lot further to prove your commitment to your cause then gunning down civilians at prayer.

At around 15:25 on 15/3/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up later.

Edited at around 16:10 on 15/3/19 (UK date) to add above and below;

Whether something is treated as terrorism or not is really only relevant on an operational level during the investigation. It determines what resources are brought to bear to identify any wider threat and eliminate those threats.

A prime example of this was the shooting in San Bernardino, California, US in December 2015.

Then President Obama was very opposed to treating this as a terrorist attack. Instead he wanted it treated simply as an example of workplace gun violence. Something which fitted with his gun control agenda.

As a result of Obama's opposition the FBI were initially prevented from bringing their vast resources to bear. Leaving the investigation in the hands of the local police.

This meant one of the conspirators, Enrique Marquez Jr, was able to check himself into hospital and avoid questioning for several days. A delay which is unacceptable if there's a ticking bomb out there waiting to go off.

The San Bernardino shooting was one of a wave of attacks carried out by ISIL in November/December 2015.

At the time ISIL were a large network with hundreds of thousands of members controlling large areas of territory in Syria and Iraq. The resources brought to bear to eliminate that network have not been law enforcement but military.

At the time Obama was continuing to support the ISIL network. Arming it through the Train & Equip program. So one of the main tasks to eliminate the threat from the wider ISIL network was getting Obama to acknowledge that it was a threat and stop him from supporting it.

We are still waiting for all the details of today's shooting in New Zealand to emerge. Therefore I'm not happy talking about the specifics of the case. It does though seem to bear a lot of similarities to other far-right, Neo-Nazi inspired attacks.

Far-right and Neo-Nazi terror networks are tiny to the point of being insignificant compared to ISIL. One of the largest in the US is the Atomwaffen Division. They are literally 80 guys with access to a computer and a printer.

What they do have is a larger number of sympathisers. People who are not members or any group or organisation but read the propaganda and news coverage online.

By labelling attacks such as the October 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue shooting as terrorism you are legitimising and reinforcing that propaganda. Increasing the chances of a casual reader being motivated to carry out a lone-wolf style attack.

So by treating that sort of attack as terrorism you're not identifying wider threats and eliminating them. Instead you're creating a network were no network existed and creating new threats where none existed.

It is being reported that the gunman in today's shooting was inspired by Anders Breivik. Who carried out a Neo-Nazi motivated mass shooting and bomb attack in Norway in July 2011.

Breivik's case is frequently pointed to by those who wish to help captured ISIL members evade justice. They demand to know why Breivik was tried under civilian law while captured ISIL members are to be tried under military law.

I very vividly remember the Breivik case. To the point that in 2018 two movies came out about it. I found that not only couldn't I bring myself to watch the movies I couldn't bring myself to read reviews of the movies.

The Breivik case presented a massive challenge the Norwegian legal system. Under Norwegian law the maximum punishment you can receive for any offence is 20 years in prison. That's because crimes such as Breivik's simply do not happen in Norway.

Breivik described himself as a soldier in a war. As a result there was a very serious discussion over trying him as an unlawful combatant under military law. Something which potentially would have allowed him to be executed.

The big argument against doing this is that despite Breivik's claims there was absolutely no evidence of him being part of a wider network or army. Therefore granting him legitimacy by trying him under military law might inspire sympathisers reading about him online to think of themselves as soldiers in his war and carry out further attacks.

Plus Norway found a legal loophole. Which prevents Breivik being released while he is still considered a threat to the public. Potentially meaning a whole life term.

The landscape of Nazi and Neo-Nazi politics in Europe has changed dramatically since 2011. The key event was former US President Obama's decision to use Nazis and Neo-Nazis to overthrow Ukraine's government in January 2014.

Since then western governments have sought to legitimise the Nazi and Neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine. Particularly in the ensuring civil war in which the Nazis and Neo-Nazis have been trying to wipe out Ukraine's ethnically Russian and, increasingly ethnically Hungarian population.

This was has drawn in Nazi and Neo-Nazis from across Europe and the US. Allowing them to establish networks and a territorial base within Ukraine. Although they are still on absolutely nowhere near the scale ISIL were in 2015.

If the links to Breivik are true I certainly have no problem with the gunman in today's attacks in New Zealand tried under military law. As an unlawful combatant in Ukraine's civil war.

I suspect though that idea is going to meet with very strong opposition from Canada, the US, Europe and anyone else who has supported Ukraine's Nazis and Neo-Nazis.

So it is not simply enough to say that Neo-Nazi extremists and ISIL extremists are two sides of the same coin.

In Ukraine the two groups literally fight shoulder-to-shoulder together.

Against Russia, and anyone else who opposes the Muslim Brotherhood's territorial aspirations.

17:20 on 15/3/19 (UK date).