If you don't name a terrorist they don't get recognition. However, how can their history be dug up?

[shockedcanadian]

So I'm not following this terror attack in NZ very closely, so if any of you have of the investigation details from reading and watching it, feel free to share.

I was considering this point. This was an Aussie citizen who conducted a terrorist act. Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?

Apparently there were others, why were they arrested? Do they have names, histories and details?

I just always want to see transparency, democracy dies in the dark. People need to be held accountable and that only happens with vital details that investigation journalists can uncover.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

He was a crazy troubled kid.....nothing else to see here.....

Plus he was a liberal, probably paid by Obama to do this

 

[Marion Morrison]

So I'm not following this terror attack in NZ very closely, so if any of you have of the investigation details from reading and watching it, feel free to share.

I was considering this point. This was an Aussie citizen who conducted a terrorist act. Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?

Apparently there were others, why were they arrested? Do they have names, histories and details?

I just always want to see transparency, democracy dies in the dark. People need to be held accountable and that only happens with vital details that investigation journalists can uncover.

All that stuff is obscured, and then the MSM lies. I doubt Goebbels was as effective.

 

[shockedcanadian]

He was a crazy troubled kid.....nothing else to see here.....

Plus he was a liberal, probably paid by Obama to do this

Who decides if there is nothing more to see here, especially after a few days? The narrative is set early and it is never deviated from. I think the public needs to have more details and from there more will come out as people investigate.

Chances are he was just a deranged nut, all terrorists are, but , the whole manifesto thing. It has convenient names and buzzwords, seems like something someone might put someone up to. Again, I'm not interested in the words of a loon, but I'm interested in if anyone had an "invisible hand" behind him. THAT'S the big threat to all of us...the radicalizers.

So, who were the others arrested, what was this kids story? He didn't just become this way overnight.

 

[OldLady]

So I'm not following this terror attack in NZ very closely, so if any of you have of the investigation details from reading and watching it, feel free to share.

I was considering this point. This was an Aussie citizen who conducted a terrorist act. Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?

Apparently there were others, why were they arrested? Do they have names, histories and details?

I just always want to see transparency, democracy dies in the dark. People need to be held accountable and that only happens with vital details that investigation journalists can uncover.

Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?
I doubt if we will hear details for a long time about any groups he was active with. That is because the police are not going to put names and details out there before they've gone after those groups and given them a hard look. You don't warn them in advance you're coming.
Make sense?

 

[shockedcanadian]

So I'm not following this terror attack in NZ very closely, so if any of you have of the investigation details from reading and watching it, feel free to share.

I was considering this point. This was an Aussie citizen who conducted a terrorist act. Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?

Apparently there were others, why were they arrested? Do they have names, histories and details?

I just always want to see transparency, democracy dies in the dark. People need to be held accountable and that only happens with vital details that investigation journalists can uncover.

Are we going to see and hear the details of who he was in contact with, how he was radicalized? Who was behind the curtain, so to speak, or is it going to only be about him watching conservative speakers?
I doubt if we will hear details for a long time about any groups he was active with. That is because the police are not going to put names and details out there before they've gone after those groups and given them a hard look. You don't warn them in advance you're coming.
Make sense?

Yes it makes sense. Still doesn't mean their details should be silenced. MSM isn't going to investigate this guy harder or come up with any more details, they aren't investigative journalists. It would be like the MSM finding Obama after 9/11, it wasn't going to happen.

All it does is raise more questions. As a society, getting to the source of the problem is smarter and saves more lives than actions after an attack. They will understand more after interviewing him as he was taken alive, but, just from reading other details in headlines, there is nothing more known about this guys history.