Christchurch shootings: 49 dead in New Zealand mosque attacks. BBC NEWS.

(The following was taken from the BBC reports on the Mass Shootings that took place at MOSQUES IN THE CITY OF CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND. As you can see, Far Right Fanaticism is not just a problem in the U.S. I was first made aware of this horrific event by a high school classmate and friend who is a resident of the city.)

Christchurch shootings: 49 dead in New Zealand mosque attacks.

• 
  

• Share this with Facebook
 
• Share this with Messenger
 
• Share this with Twitter
 
• Share this with Email
 
• Share

Related Topics

• Christchurch mosque shootings

Media captionChristchurch was put into lockdown as events unfolded

Forty-nine people have been killed and at least 20 wounded in shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the incident as a terrorist attack and one of New Zealand's "darkest days". It is the nation's deadliest attack.

A gunman identifying himself as an Australian live-streamed the rampage at Al Noor mosque to Facebook.

A man in his late 20s has been arrested and charged with murder. Two other men and one woman were also detained.

Firearms and explosive devices were recovered, Police Commissioner Mike Bush said. One of those detained was later released.

• Follow our live updates
• What is known about the suspects?
• Agonising wait for victims' families

The gunman live-streaming the attack from a head-mounted camera said he was a 28-year-old Australian called Brenton Tarrant. The footage showed him firing indiscriminately at men, women and children from close range inside the Al Noor mosque.

Police called on the public not to share the "extremely distressing" footage online. Facebook said it had removed the gunman's Facebook and Instagram accounts and was working to remove any copies of the footage.

The suspect who was charged appeared to have published a document before the attack outlining his intentions and in which he espoused far right and anti-immigrant ideology. He is due in court on Saturday morning.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison described the man as an "extremist, right-wing" terrorist. Police Commissioner Bush confirmed that the man was not known in advance to either New Zealand or Australian security services.

• Witnesses 'prayed for end to bullets'
• Bangladesh cricket team escapes shooting
• UK mosque security under review

New Zealand police said that officers had gone to a property in the city of Dunedin in connection with the attack in Christchurch.

"It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack," Prime Minister Ardern said in a press conference.

In a tweet, she said: "What has happened in Christchurch is an extraordinary act of unprecedented violence. It has no place in New Zealand. Many of those affected will be members of our migrant communities - New Zealand is their home - they are us."

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION. RETHINKING HEALTH CARE ETHICS.

Stephen Scher and Kasia Kozlowska. Rethinking Health Care Ethics. Palgrave Pivot/Springer, 2018. Available Open Access (free download): https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9789811308291 “a powerful and deeply reasoned critique of teaching and practice in contemporary bioethics, and a timely, compelling, and humane proposal for rethinking values and ethics in the care of patients.” – Allan M. Brandt, Department of the History of Science, and former Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University If Rethinking Health Care Ethics had a subtitle, it would be “Philosophical Ethics Meets the Real World.” The book identifies a gap between philosophical approaches to normative and professional ethics, especially as embodied in the American bioethics movement, and the actual world of professional practitioners, where ethical problems are encountered, and solved as best as possible, day by day, minute by minute. The book is, in effect, an extended exploration of this gap between theory and practice, and of how to address it. An easy way of understanding the setting for the book is by relating an anecdote by the former co-editors of a major medical journal. They were working as visitors at a university-affiliated hospital, and they described (to the resident “ethicist”) “an everyday clinical decision (one of very many).” The ethicist replied, “That would take days—even weeks—for me to analyze properly.” Moreover, he added, “If the end results of [their] decision were harmful,” the two doctors “would have been unethical.” The problem, of course, is that health professionals—and virtually anyone working in any profession—need to make these decisions quickly, often immediately. And they often even make these decisions more or less automatically, without thinking. How can that be? The book is nontechnically written in order to make it accessible to non-philosophers, ranging from undergraduate students to practicing professionals. It is potentially useful in undergraduate and graduate courses in professional ethics, in courses offered in professional schools, and for practicing professionals. The book also raises, indirectly, important questions about the limits of philosophical ethics and about how one should teach moral philosophy, and with what goals and expectations in mind. Stephen Scher, PhD, JD (sscher@mclean.harvard.edu) is Senior Editor of the Harvard Review of Psychiatry and former Senior Editor of the American Journal of International Law. Kasia Kozlowska, MBBS, PhD, is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Sydney Medical School.

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716

TRUMP, MANAFORT, AND THE "STRAW MAN" ARGUMENT. part 2.

Basically, Judge Ellis was putting on record the nature of the Case that was before the Court: WHAT IT WAS, AND WHAT IT WAS NOT. THIS INCLUDED THE CHARGES THAT WERE BROUGHT AGAINST PAUL MANAFORT, AND THE PUNISHMENT HANDED DOWN.

-  These were Criminal Acts that were Financial in Nature, and involved noone but Paul Manafort.
There were no other Defendents on Trial.

-  Any evidence produced during the Trial, either by the Prosecution or Defense, was related to the
charges brought by the State. What Paul Manafort may have done, or not done, in other areas of his
life were irrelevant, and did not have an impact on the outcome.

- The Sentence handed down was meant to reflect the degree to which the Judge felt furthered the cause of justice, and did not include speculation about what other Criminal Acts Paul Manafort, or anyone else, may have committed.(Whether we agree or disagree with the severity of the punishment is another matter).

- At no time, Before, During, or After the Trial, (Prior to Sentencing), was the investigation interfering with the 2016 Presidential Election even mentioned as relevent to the Matters before the Court.

As to why the Judge felt in necessary to even approach the subject is pure speculation, since it has nothing to do with the sentence he handed down. Perhaps, he wanted to head off criticism that he was
being to lenient, and making it clear that nothing other then the proceedings in court would have a bearing on his sentencing.

However, Donald Trump and Paul Manaforts Lawyers took this part of the Judges Decision to create a BOGUS AND IRRATIONAL SCENARIO THAT WAS EASILY FALSIFIABLE. THE VALIDITY OF THE RUSSIAN TAMPERING INVESTIGATION, OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY PART OF THE ROBERT MUELLER  INVESTIGATION, WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT HIS PLACE, FROM THE BENCH, TO DO SO.

What should really trouble you is PAUL MANAFORTS LAWYERS MAKING SUCH A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT. IT COULD NOT BENEFIT HIM IN THIS CASE, AND WITH DONALD TRUMPS STATEMENTS ON TWITTER, MAKES THEM LOOK DESPERATE TO FIND A WAY TO DISCREDIT ANY INVESTIGATION THAT IS FOCUSING ON DONALD TRUMP, AS EVIDENCED BY THE "STRAW MAN."

TRUMP, MANAFORT, AND THE "STRAW MAN" ARGUMENT. part 1.

Someone should remind Self-Appointed Genuis Donald Trump, and Paul Manaforts Lawyers, that occupying a Political Office, or being a member of the BAR ASSOCIATION, does not exempt you from the RULES OF LOGIC. Specifically, the FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT CALLED THE "STRAW MAN."

On Friday, Donald Trump referred to a Federal Judge’s remarks during the sentencing of Paul Manafort, in a financial crimes case, to again criticize the Russia investigation and falsely declare a finding of “no collusion.”

He said the following on Twitter:

"The Judge and the lawyer in the Paul Manafort case stated loudly and for the world to hear that there was NO COLLUSION with Russia. But the Witch Hunt Hoax continues as you now add these statements to House & Senate Intelligence & Senator Burr. So bad for our Country! " 8:30 AM - Mar 8, 2019.

From Paul Manaforts Attorneys we get the following;

“There is absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official or Russia.”

It's nice to see the Occupier of the Oval Office, and members of the legal profession using the same LOGICAL FALLACY to support Donald Trumps desperate attempt to divert attention away from his scandal ridden administration.

I am referring to the following:

THE "STRAW MAN" ARGUMENT.

A Straw Man argument takes a proposition or assertion, and refutes it by misstating or misapplying what was said.  Often this is done by claiming to argue against something that was not part of the original content, and attempts to create a position that the opposing side never proposed, endorsed or even addressed.

What do I mean?

(The following was Taken from the N.Y Times Article: "Trump Falsely Claims That Manafort Judge Declared There Was ‘No Collusion’ With Russia." March, 8, 2019. By Eileen Sullivan.

"What Judge Ellis actually said Thursday was that Mr. Manafort was “not before this court for anything having to do with collusion with the Russian government to influence this election.”

There was “no collusion” because Mr. Manafort was not charged with or convicted of any crimes of collusion...

THE "STRAW MAN."-  Donald Trump and the Lawyers took what the Judge said, and Misapplied the Meaning and Intent into a Conclusion that the Judge had made regarding the Truth of the Proposition that there was Collusion between Trumps Presidential Campaign, and sympathetic Russian Allies, that subverted the 2016 Election in Donald Trumps favor.

SEE PART 2.