Shooting at Christchurch Mosque

Before Tarrant, Mohamed Merah had already filmed his attacks with a GoPro. He even edited it, added religious messages, songs praising Jihad, flags and pictures of Palestinian children killed by Israelian people. He sent his video to Al Jazira who decided not to publish it.

The terrorist from the Hyper Cacher also had a GoPro but didin't publish the video. I think since these two attacks it became easier to post violent videos on mainstream medias.

N/A

Neah wrote:

Before Tarrant, Mohamed Merah had already filmed his attacks with a GoPro. He even edited it, added religious messages, songs praising Jihad, flags and pictures of Palestinian children killed by Israelian people. He sent his video to Al Jazira who decided not to publish it.

The terrorist from the Hyper Cacher also had a GoPro but didin't publish the video. I think since these two attacks it became easier to post violent videos on mainstream medias.

So did the shooter at the Jewish Museum of Belgium, though his wasn't working.
I REALLY REALLY WISH that Al-Jazeera published the Merah one, so frustrating. I wonder if you have Freedom of Information requests in France? If you do you could ask the police for it.

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Neah wrote:

Before Tarrant, Mohamed Merah had already filmed his attacks with a GoPro. He even edited it, added religious messages, songs praising Jihad, flags and pictures of Palestinian children killed by Israelian people. He sent his video to Al Jazira who decided not to publish it.

The terrorist from the Hyper Cacher also had a GoPro but didin't publish the video. I think since these two attacks it became easier to post violent videos on mainstream medias.

So did the shooter at the Jewish Museum of Belgium, though his wasn't working.
I REALLY REALLY WISH that Al-Jazeera published the Merah one, so frustrating. I wonder if you have Freedom of Information requests in France? If you do you could ask the police for it.

I don't think we have such a right in France, although I know at least one journalist saw it (he described it, I could tell you what was in the video if you want). Maybe if you have a legitimate reason to watch it you can ask but I don't see why they would allow someone like me to see the footage. I wouldn't watch it anyway... He killed children, I cannot watch such a thing, it would be unbearable. The video was so unbearable and graphic that they did not show it during the trial, because some families wanted it to be shown and some didn't.

edit: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] apparently he said he published it online but if he did, the video hasn't be found yet.

Wanna know something really frustrating? Tarrant's manifesto is now banned in NZ, how ridiculous. "Possession of the manifesto carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and anyone who shares it can be jailed for 14 years."

Neah wrote:

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Neah wrote:

Before Tarrant, Mohamed Merah had already filmed his attacks with a GoPro. He even edited it, added religious messages, songs praising Jihad, flags and pictures of Palestinian children killed by Israelian people. He sent his video to Al Jazira who decided not to publish it.

The terrorist from the Hyper Cacher also had a GoPro but didin't publish the video. I think since these two attacks it became easier to post violent videos on mainstream medias.

So did the shooter at the Jewish Museum of Belgium, though his wasn't working.
I REALLY REALLY WISH that Al-Jazeera published the Merah one, so frustrating. I wonder if you have Freedom of Information requests in France? If you do you could ask the police for it.

I don't think we have such a right in France, although I know at least one journalist saw it (he described it, I could tell you what was in the video if you want). Maybe if you have a legitimate reason to watch it you can ask but I don't see why they would allow someone like me to see the footage. I wouldn't watch it anyway... He killed children, I cannot watch such a thing, it would be unbearable. The video was so unbearable and graphic that they did not show it during the trial, because some families wanted it to be shown and some didn't.

edit: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] apparently he said he published it online but if he did, the video hasn't be found yet.

Wanna know something really frustrating? Tarrant's manifesto is now banned in NZ, how ridiculous. "Possession of the manifesto carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and anyone who shares it can be jailed for 14 years."

Can you show the journalist's description?

InsaneIntruder wrote:

Can you show the journalist's description?

Unfortunately it is in French and right now I don't have time to summarize it or translate it. Here are some interesting articles translated by Google Translate, I hope this is understandable. If there is a peculiar point or sentence you don't understand feel free to ask and I'll tell you. Or if you want I could translate/summarize anything you want in two days:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I read through the translated articles quickly and saw that the last words of soldier Imad Ibn Ziaten were poorly translated so I just translate them because I think he deserves admiration:
Merah: "Lie flat on your stomach! I'm not kidding, lie flat on your stomach!"
Imad Ibn Ziaten: "I am not lying flat on my stomach. Clear off! I'm not lying flat on my stomach, I stay (...) You gonna shoot? Go on then, shoot."
[Merah shoot]

Neah wrote:

Wanna know something really frustrating? Tarrant's manifesto is now banned in NZ, how ridiculous. "Possession of the manifesto carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and anyone who shares it can be jailed for 14 years."

Jesus Christ. That sentence is about as harsh as getting caught with child porn in the States. This is an absurdity.

QuestionMark wrote:

Neah wrote:

Wanna know something really frustrating? Tarrant's manifesto is now banned in NZ, how ridiculous. "Possession of the manifesto carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and anyone who shares it can be jailed for 14 years."

Jesus Christ. That sentence is about as harsh as getting caught with child porn in the States. This is an absurdity.  

In France the sentence for a rape is 15 years.

I'm not sure if they've been posted already, but here's the main files for whoever needs them.

(Content removed by staff)

(Content removed by staff)

(Content removed by staff)

(Content removed by staff)

(Content removed by staff)

Brenton's Arrest Video

CVA made a video about the Shooting:

I was very surprised when he started shooting through the windshield. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] As I know you know well about guns, as the bullet had first to break the glass, could it have had an impact on the precision or strength or the bullet?

Neah wrote:

I was very surprised when he started shooting through the windshield. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] As I know you know well about guns, as the bullet had first to break the glass, could it have had an impact on the precision or strength or the bullet?

It depends, as he was using a shotgun (most likely 12 gauge), it had to be either a slug or a shell, if it was a shell then some of the pellets would have been weakened and probably would have hit the ground (as pellets spread when being fired). If it was a slug, then the precision wouldn't have been weakened that much for it not to hit his victims.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Neah wrote:

I was very surprised when he started shooting through the windshield. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] As I know you know well about guns, as the bullet had first to break the glass, could it have had an impact on the precision or strength or the bullet?

It depends, as he was using a shotgun (most likely 12 gauge), it had to be either a slug or a shell, if it was a shell then some of the pellets would have been weakened and probably would have hit the ground (as pellets spread when being fired). If it was a slug, then the precision wouldn't have been weakened that much for it not to hit his victims.

Although Shotguns are not my expertise.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Neah wrote:

I was very surprised when he started shooting through the windshield. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] As I know you know well about guns, as the bullet had first to break the glass, could it have had an impact on the precision or strength or the bullet?

It depends, as he was using a shotgun (most likely 12 gauge), it had to be either a slug or a shell, if it was a shell then some of the pellets would have been weakened and probably would have hit the ground (as pellets spread when being fired). If it was a slug, then the precision wouldn't have been weakened that much for it not to hit his victims.

Although Shotguns are not my expertise.

Thanks! I'm not sure it was his expertise either, he probably didn't even wonder about it and just shot out of rage.

I was just thinking, considering how Brenton Tarrant was a North Korean tourist, is there the possibility of him making a random appearance in one of those Western tourist documentaries/footage?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"Social media places him in Pakistan in October of last year and in North Korea, where he was photographed in a tour group visiting the Samjiyon Grand Monument."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Brenton Tarrant about why he chose these two mosques wrote:

The Christchurch and Linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more prominent and optically foreign building, with less students,more adults and a prior history of extremism.

Why was he interested in it having less students and more adults? Was it because he thought it would make people there more radical because less educated? Or because he thought that a student would be fitter and could possibly stop him? Or because he thought people would be sadder if victims were young?

He follows in Breivik's footsteps:

"The Australian white supremacist accused of killing 50 worshippers in two Christchurch mosques has lodged a complaint over prison conditions, New Zealand authorities say."

Neah wrote:

Brenton Tarrant about why he chose these two mosques wrote:

The Christchurch and Linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more prominent and optically foreign building, with less students,more adults and a prior history of extremism.

Why was he interested in it having less students and more adults? Was it because he thought it would make people there more radical because less educated? Or because he thought that a student would be fitter and could possibly stop him? Or because he thought people would be sadder if victims were young?

Perhaps he considered adult Muslims a greater threat to Western society.

Graphic content has been removed from this thread.

As fucked up as it sounds, I wonder why he didn't carry on shooting at the second mosque after he had been disarmed? In the live stream video, you can clearly see that he had two shotguns and an AK rifle.

Does anyone has any info about these two guys?

DooMRebel wrote:

Does anyone has any info about these two guys?

I heard that they were two guys who showed up to the scene with their own weapons intent on trying to help the police or apprehend Tarrant. They ofc got arrested by the cops because the police didn't know what their intentions were at the time (which is why initially they were saying that they had arrested 4 people in connections with the attacks).

Could we have new pictures of him or will they be censored forever now?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"The man accused of killing 50 people in attacks on two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch has been ordered to undergo a mental health assessments.

High Court judge Cameron Mander said Brenton Tarrant would be seen by experts to determine whether he was fit to stand trial or insane.

The 28-year-old who has been moved to New Zealand's only maximum-security prison in Auckland, appeared at the Christchurch High Court through a video link.

Handcuffed and seated, the Australian national was wearing a grey prison t-shirt as listened calmly throughout the hearing, which lasted roughly 20 minutes. He did not speak during the hearing and was not required to submit a plea.
[...]
It had been reported that Tarrant wished to represent himself and legal experts had warned that he may try to use the hearings as a platform to present his ideology and beliefs.

However, it later emerged that he would be represented by two Auckland lawyers. One of them, Shane Tait, said in a statement on his website, which did not include any comments on the case."

The guns he officially used and had were:

.223-caliber Aero Precision M4E1 semi-automatic rifle

.223-caliber Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle

12-gauge Mossberg 930 SPX Tactical semi-automatic shotgun

12-gauge Remington 870 Synthetic pump-action shotgun

Lever-action Rifle

Tommy QTR wrote:

The guns he officially used and had were:

.223-caliber Aero Precision M4E1 semi-automatic rifle

.223-caliber Ruger AR-556 semi-automatic rifle

12-gauge Mossberg 930 SPX Tactical semi-automatic shotgun

12-gauge Remington 870 Synthetic pump-action shotgun

Lever-action Rifle

So he didn't have automatic guns. I heard journalists who pretended to know well about guns and said they could recognize he used automatic ones but I didn't trust them. This is such a journalist thing to say, in France they keep saying automatic for semi-automatic. They know nothing about it and prefer things to be even more sensational than what they already are.

[Sorry rant, tell me if I should post this somewhere else. Seemed relevant to Christchurch]

Honestly the amount of censoring that is coming from this massacre is somewhat terrifying. The thought that authorities can just make illegality for possessing fucking words? I mean, jail time of ten fucking years just for having a written document? And making it frowned upon to even look at his face? I'm sorry, I get the mindset, but jesus fucking christ so much for the "free world".

You can't censor someone out of existence, and you can't take away an idea, no matter if it's awful or not. It's got those weird Dystopian Utopia vibes to me, where no ones allowed to "learn about the bad people" and then 5 years from now we have to start taking happy pills that cut off parts of our brain hahaha. I know that's super far thinking, but it just seems like the beginning of that mindset, that erasing "the bad" from life is gonna make things at all better...

I hope people on this forum, out of anyone, would understand too, that just blatantly scrubbing something like this of any details isn't going to truly solve anything. It's just one step further to ignorance, censoring people of any "icky bad scary stuf" so we can be more complacent and not see the people behind these cases. As much as people hate to admit it, yea people who do this are people. Who'd write and create and think and feel and, low and behold, get these sort of ideas regardless of what's out there. Painting them more and more as faceless, nameless monsters isn't going to change that a damn bit. You're erasing bits of history for some political reasoning, I mean imagine if Mein Kampf or any evidence from the holocaust was taken...people would think it didn't happen...oh...wait...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree with you and your post is not off topic at all. If you want someone has created a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], if you are interested in reading what some of us think about the issues you raised. I think they are very important things that are happening right now and I'm quite worried about it.

Neah wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree with you and your post is not off topic at all. If you want someone has created a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], if you are interested in reading what some of us think about the issues you raised. I think they are very important things that are happening right now and I'm quite worried about it.

That's just what I would've been lookin for too, thanks. And I'm glad you agree.

Westygalery wrote:

[Sorry rant, tell me if I should post this somewhere else. Seemed relevant to Christchurch]

Honestly the amount of censoring that is coming from this massacre is somewhat terrifying. The thought that authorities can just make illegality for possessing fucking words? I mean, jail time of ten fucking years just for having a written document? And making it frowned upon to even look at his face? I'm sorry, I get the mindset, but jesus fucking christ so much for the "free world".

You can't censor someone out of existence, and you can't take away an idea, no matter if it's awful or not. It's got those weird Dystopian Utopia vibes to me, where no ones allowed to "learn about the bad people" and then 5 years from now we have to start taking happy pills that cut off parts of our brain hahaha. I know that's super far thinking, but it just seems like the beginning of that mindset, that erasing "the bad" from life is gonna make things at all better...

I hope people on this forum, out of anyone, would understand too, that just blatantly scrubbing something like this of any details isn't going to truly solve anything. It's just one step further to ignorance, censoring people of any "icky bad scary stuf" so we can be more complacent and not see the people behind these cases. As much as people hate to admit it, yea people who do this are people. Who'd write and create and think and feel and, low and behold, get these sort of ideas regardless of what's out there. Painting them more and more as faceless, nameless monsters isn't going to change that a damn bit. You're erasing bits of history for some political reasoning, I mean imagine if Mein Kampf or any evidence from the holocaust was taken...people would think it didn't happen...oh...wait...

No Notoriety and it's consequences are going to be an absolute disaster in the upcoming years. I guess trying to discuss what makes any murderer tick is now "politically incorrect", you see alot of people on the left pushing this while people on the right could really give less of a damn.

Brenton Tarrant allegedly sent this to a guy two years ago:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


And here is the picture used as an avatar which apparently shows him in North Korea:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's it, sadly...

"New Zealand gun laws pass 119-1 after Christchurch mosque shootings"

Only one MP, David Seymour, voted against:

"The only dissenting voice was from the libertarian ACT Party's sole MP, David Seymour.
He questioned why the measure was being rushed through.
"If you're going to make a law with urgency, there better be a damn good reason, otherwise people deserve a say," he previously told reporters.
But last week when he was speaking to the press about his objections to the speed of the bill, he missed being in Parliament to vote to slow down the process."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

N/A

G4145 wrote:

Neah wrote:

That's it, sadly...

"New Zealand gun laws pass 119-1 after Christchurch mosque shootings"

Only one MP, David Seymour, voted against:

"The only dissenting voice was from the libertarian ACT Party's sole MP, David Seymour.
He questioned why the measure was being rushed through.
"If you're going to make a law with urgency, there better be a damn good reason, otherwise people deserve a say," he previously told reporters.
But last week when he was speaking to the press about his objections to the speed of the bill, he missed being in Parliament to vote to slow down the process."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm beginning to believe that any gun laws are wrong.

I'm started to feel the same although it depends on my mood. I usually think you don't need an automatic gun for self-defense, but then I think that in fact you do if a civil war ever was to break out or a totalitarian regime to be established...

What really annoys me is that he has "ant-imperialism" on his manifesto, like I know the Far-Right use Left-Wing talking points all the time but what does he think Nazi Germany was? Like how does he think New Zealand and Australia came into existence? Like dumbass your country was founded on imperialism so how can you call yourself "anti-imperialist?" Fascists are some of the most idiotic people to ever exist.

N/A

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

What really annoys me is that he has "ant-imperialism" on his manifesto, like I know the Far-Right use Left-Wing talking points all the time but what does he think Nazi Germany was? Like how does he think New Zealand and Australia came into existence? Like dumbass your country was founded on imperialism so how can you call yourself "anti-imperialist?" Fascists are some of the most idiotic people to ever exist.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the fact that fascists may be in favour of non-interventionism and nationalism rather than globalism.

Looks like someone doesn't know history and that fascist countries were imperialist.

N/A

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

What really annoys me is that he has "ant-imperialism" on his manifesto, like I know the Far-Right use Left-Wing talking points all the time but what does he think Nazi Germany was? Like how does he think New Zealand and Australia came into existence? Like dumbass your country was founded on imperialism so how can you call yourself "anti-imperialist?" Fascists are some of the most idiotic people to ever exist.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the fact that fascists may be in favour of non-interventionism and nationalism rather than globalism.

Looks like someone doesn't know history and that fascist countries were imperialist.

Ok, looks like I'll have to reiterate my point again;

Looks like someone doesn't understand the fact that fascists may be in favour of non-interventionism and nationalism rather than globalism.

Pick up a history book and look what Fascist foreign policy was, because it wasn't non-interventionist.

N/A

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

G4145 wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

What really annoys me is that he has "ant-imperialism" on his manifesto, like I know the Far-Right use Left-Wing talking points all the time but what does he think Nazi Germany was? Like how does he think New Zealand and Australia came into existence? Like dumbass your country was founded on imperialism so how can you call yourself "anti-imperialist?" Fascists are some of the most idiotic people to ever exist.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the fact that fascists may be in favour of non-interventionism and nationalism rather than globalism.

Looks like someone doesn't know history and that fascist countries were imperialist.

Ok, looks like I'll have to reiterate my point again;

Looks like someone doesn't understand the fact that fascists may be in favour of non-interventionism and nationalism rather than globalism.

Pick up a history book and look what Fascist foreign policy was, because it wasn't non-interventionist.

Yup, well done, buddy.

But you do realise that ideologies can be developed and evolved?

Ba'athism advocates pan-Arabism, but neither the Syrian or Iraqi-dominated factions of Ba'athism ever truly espoused pan-Arabism. Communism stresses mostly political ideological unity, yet Nicolae Ceausescu developed his own ideology called National Communism.

That is true yes, to that I would agree with you. But Tarrant did not. He defended and supports Nazi Germany yet calls himself "anti-imperialist" while ignoring the fact that the Nazis were imperialist themselves. I don't know about you but it is way too early for me to get into a political debate, so I will end things respectively and wish you a good day.

People are complex and don't have to agree with everything from their ideology. Look Tommy, most people on the left are pro-gun control and yet you don't agree with them. It doesn't mean that you betray your ideology or contradict yourself, it just mean that you are intelligent and you can think by yourself.

Moreover I think there is a clear distinction that has to be made between the nazi ideology regarding race and social issues and their economical policy. Tarrant may have been more supportive of their racial and social ideas which are the most important aspects of nazism (although I wouldn't call him a nazi in the original sense because he doesn't want to conquer other countries and I am not even sure he thinks there is a hierarchy between races).

I don't know why he couldn't call himself an anti-imperialist simply because his country was founded on imperialism. Just because your country was created around a monarchy doesn't make you a royalist.

Nowadays far-right has become very diverse and many members are against imperialism. Many of them are also pro-nature. The term "far-right" is more about social issues than economy and I think a word should be found (or maybe I am not aware of it) for "left-far-right". Tarrant is not even homophobe, which really surprised me.

And just because you may agree with him on a very specific point doesn't make you a nazi, you can't disagree on everything.

You don't have to reply to my post or it might end up in a boring and long debate as usual but I just wanted to give my opinion.

More people have been arrested for sharing the video.

"Six people appeared in a New Zealand court on Monday on charges they illegally redistributed the video of a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch on March 15 in which 50 people were killed.

Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O'Driscoll denied bail to businessman Philip Arps and an 18-year-old suspect who both were taken into custody in March.

The four others are not in custody."

I wonder if people will really have 14 years or if only some of them are used as scapegoats.

Neah wrote:

most people on the left are pro-gun control.

This is just wrong, left-wing are not anti gun, liberals are, there's a huge difference.

Quote :

Moreover I think there is a clear distinction that has to be made between the nazi ideology regarding race and social issues and their economical policy. Tarrant may have been more supportive of their racial and social ideas which are the most important aspects of nazism (although I wouldn't call him a nazi in the original sense because he doesn't want to conquer other countries and I am not even sure he thinks there is a hierarchy between races).

He literally said he thinks White people are superior to non-whites.

Quote :

I don't know why he couldn't call himself an anti-imperialist simply because his country was founded on imperialism.

Because he defends and supports a imperialist nation while calling himself a ethno-nationalist and a nativist even though white people aren't native to Australia so it makes him a hypocrite, hell even Varg Vikernes who is a far-right nationalist agrees with me here (although I obliviously disagree with it being the fault of the Jews):

Quote :

Nowadays far-right has become very diverse and many members are against imperialism. Many of them are also pro-nature. The term "far-right" is more about social issues than economy and I think a word should be found (or maybe I am not aware of it) for "left-far-right".

That's an oxymoron.

Quote :

Tarrant is not even homophobe, which really surprised me.

He's lying.

Quote :

You don't have to reply to my post or it might end up in a boring and long debate as usual but I just wanted to give my opinion.

I have no idea why you're defending Tarrant here, the guy is a piece of shit and should be challenged on his vile ideology.

Tommy QTR wrote:

Because he defends and supports a imperialist nation while calling himself a ethno-nationalist and a nativist even though white people aren't native to Australia so it makes him a hypocrite

He does not want to defend imperialism in his nation, he wants to defend the culture and "race" of his nation, that's two different things. I do agree with you however that it is hypocritical for him to base his ideology so much on the link between race and the land whereas the Australian land was invaded.

Quote :

I have no idea why you're defending Tarrant here, the guy is a piece of shit and should be challenged on his vile ideology.

I'm not defending Tarrant and I don't even know what I wrote that could make you think so. I simply don't care about the fact that I agree with him on anti-imperialism, especially as he didn't kill anyone out of his anti-imperialism thoughts. I don't think he was lying, I don't think he wrote so in order to harm left-wing anti-imperialists. You may think he did this on purpose and I will always fail to convince you otherwise anyway. He also wanted to preserve the environment, so do I and that's no big deal. He killed 50 innocent people including children and encouraged others to do the same, that's what matter.

Neah wrote:

Tommy QTR wrote:

Because he defends and supports a imperialist nation while calling himself a ethno-nationalist and a nativist even though white people aren't native to Australia so it makes him a hypocrite

He does not want to defend imperialism in his nation, he wants to defend the culture and "race" of his nation, that's two different things. I do agree with you however that it is hypocritical for him to base his ideology so much on the link between race and the land whereas the Australian land was invaded.

He's defending Nazi Germany which was an imperialist country.

Quote :

I'm not defending Tarrant and I don't even know what I wrote that could make you think so. I simply don't care about the fact that I agree with him on anti-imperialism, especially as he didn't kill anyone out of his anti-imperialism thoughts. I don't think he was lying, I don't think he wrote so in order to harm left-wing anti-imperialists. You may think he did this on purpose and I will always fail to convince you otherwise anyway. He also wanted to preserve the environment, so do I and that's no big deal. He killed 50 innocent people including children and encouraged others to do the same, that's what matter.

He also credited Candice Owens and other conservative figures as part of his radicalisation but he clearly was lying there right? I'm simply pointing out the fact that he's a lying piece of trash who uses left-wing talking points to discredit the left and cause division, I mean he literally defends imperialism of fascist countries so how can he be anti imperialist?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I can already feel that this debate would be going nowhere if I replied, and I don't really have anything new to say anyway so repeating myself would be pointless.

I will try to stay away from political discussion for a time (even if I might fail because they are so tempting) cause I'm having a bit of doubts, worries and stress regarding the world and my own political opinions. If I show up in a debate just kick me out.

Does anyone know if the second mosque shooting was recorded on his GoPro? He couldn't of just livestreamed the whole thing without him even knowing if it was actually streaming or not.

Documentary on the shooting: