Ansbach explosion: Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up in Germany

[dowie]

How do we know Islam has anything to do with them? They could just be violent individuals that happen to be muslim. We don't know, but using preconceived notions to assume they are isn't the right way to go about it.

an attacker getting offended because some girls are wearing shorts and a vest has some cultural/religious baggage

if you've got evidence to suggest there was mental illness or a history of violence then that changes things but at the moment that is completely unknown

 

[Amp34]

No that is three Islamist attacks, one non-Islamist attacks and two that might not be inspired by ISIS per say but religion/culture seem to be a factor

What Boston shooting? I'm commenting on European attacks in the past week-ish- there are shootings in the US pretty much daily and there are Islamist related attacks on a daily basis in the middle east too.

Boston Lincolnshire. Luckily the facts came quickly, but no guessing what Roahs deleted post was about.

Your other categories are all speculation however. There are plenty of jilted lover murders perpetrated by native europeans.

All had pages of people insisting it was terrorism related before the facts came out.

 

[Amp34]

an attacker getting offended because some girls are wearing shorts and a vest has some cultural/religious baggage

if you've got evidence to suggest there was mental illness or a history of violence then that changes things but at the moment that is completely unknown

The whole argument was pointing out we shouldn't be jumping to terrorism conclusions, not that that one was not cultural related.

 

[dowie]

Your other categories are all speculation however.

no I've avoided speculating with this and have divided up into 3 Islamist, 1 non-Islamist and 2 other that seem to be Islam/culture related

speculating is what you're doing when arguing for possible mental illness etc.. when there is no evidence of it etc..

 

[dowie]

The whole argument was pointing out we shouldn't be jumping to terrorism conclusions, not that that one was not cultural related.

no that wasn't my argument at all

to clarify: I'm fine with the argument that we shouldn't be jumping to terrorism conclusions - my post wasn't aimed at that idea but was made in the context of the wider subject not whatever was discussed in the posts immediately preceding it.

 

[RaohNS]

No. I'm pointing out that, much to the annoyance of many on this forum insisting it was a terrorist attack, it was' a terrorist attackt.

Yet so many people jumped to that conclusion, complained about the fact the media didn't report his religion and didn't instantly jump on the terrorism bandwagon.

In the end the media got it right, the people asking others not jump to conclusions got it right and the people arguing it was a terrorist attack before any of the facts came out got it wrong. Again.

All I'm asking is people look at the facts and make a decision based on that, rather than run with preconceived ideas that have been shown to be wrong several times in the last few weeks.

But the man was a terrorist. The fact he didn't succeed is contra to his intention. Some have been wrong granted. The dual national shooting people. No problem stating that but to ignore someone and his plan is just psychotic.

Its like a guy running at you shouting death to the west firing a gun, hitting nobody in a crowd then he gets shot and rather than the conclusive reaction people say "thank goodness he didn't hit anyone otherwise he would have been a terrorist".

In many ways I do consider events that attempt to lessen the severity of the seriousness of what could be/was a slap in the face of all the victims.

That's all I'm prepared to say on the matter.

 

[Amp34]

no that wasn't my argument at all

to clarify: I'm fine with the argument that we shouldn't be jumping to terrorism conclusions - my post wasn't aimed at that idea but was made in the context of the wider subject not whatever was discussed in the posts immediately preceding it.

That was the argument I was making, which you joined in on.

The argument moved on for various reasons but that was the point I was trying to make.

Regarding your point context is key, at least one was definitely related to cultural issues. That then goes into the debate of whether his cultural upbringing was the main cause or whether he was just a violent person and went further than just looking in disapproval because of his violent nature. That we are unlikely to ever know.

The other was essentially a jilted lover murder, which as I pointed out happens regularly (heck, that could have been what the Boston shooting was about). Was his culture a cause? Again the question will probably never be answered satisfactorily. Would it have happened if he wasn't let into the country? No. But he was. Then on that vein the debate continues by asking how should Europe help refugees and should we stop helping because of a small number of incidents caused by them.

no I've avoided speculating with this and have divided up into 3 Islamist, 1 non-Islamist and 2 other that seem to be Islam/culture related

speculating is what you're doing when arguing for possible mental illness etc.. when there is no evidence of it etc..

I'm specifically talking about the last category, which is speculation. You even said "seem" in the sentence.

My point about mental illness was not about all of them, it was specifically regarding at least two, the mall shooting and the guy at the beginning of this thread. Both announced by authorities to have had mental issues.

 

[Amp34]

But the man was a terrorist. The fact he didn't succeed is contra to his intention. Some have been wrong granted. The dual national shooting people. No problem stating that but to ignore someone and his plan is just psychotic.

Its like a guy running at you shouting death to the west firing a gun, hitting nobody in a crowd then he gets shot and rather than the conclusive reaction people say "thank goodness he didn't hit anyone otherwise he would have been a terrorist".

In many ways I do consider events that attempt to lessen the severity of the seriousness of what could be/was a slap in the face of all the victims.

That's all I'm prepared to say on the matter.

Again, I wasn't specifically talking about the bomber. I was talking about multiple threads and incidents. Sometimes you are right, just as many times you are wrong.

Why not wait until the motive is announced before claiming you know what happened and why?

EDIT: The one I'm talking about is the guy that killed his work colleague, brought up by you, which wasn't a terrorist incident.

 

[dowie]

That was the argument I was making, which you joined in on.

nope I didn't... see clarification above. My post was in the context of this thread in general not the immediately preceding posts.

The argument moved on for various reasons but that was the point I was trying to make.

fair enough but I'm not disputing that argument

Regarding your point context is key, at least one was definitely related to cultural issues. That then goes into the debate of whether his cultural upbringing was the main cause or whether he was just a violent person and went further than just looking in disapproval because of his violent nature. That we are unlikely to ever know.

well yeah, beyond that it just becomes speculation thus I've not stuck it in the Islamist or the non-Islamist category

The other was essentially a jilted lover murder, which as I pointed out happens regularly (heck, that could have been what the Boston shooting was about). Was his culture a cause? Again the question will probably never be answered satisfactorily. Would it have happened if he wasn't let into the country? No. But he was. Then on that vein the debate continues by asking how should Europe help refugees and should we stop helping because of a small number of incidents caused by them.

well that is for another thread but this refugee welcome nonsense we had wasn't a very good idea - nor is encouraging people to enter countries illegally - if we're going to bring in refugees then it ought to be on a controlled basis with certain types of people prioritized like children, families... unaccompanied men of fighting age should be the lowest priority to the point where we don't really take them unless there are some serious mitigating circumstances. Most refugees are in the neighboring countries to Syria - what we have is a subset of some of the fittest, healthiest people with sufficient access to funds to pay for people smugglers. I'd rather we declared that all asylum applications would be processed in Jordan/Turkey and that anyone entering Europe illegally and trying to claim would be returned there. We can then take our quotas and asses people based on actual needs. A fit healthy, 20 or 30 something single male has no pressing need to be in Europe and can stay in Turkey/Jordan IMO, someone with medical issues or someone with small children who could do with attending school etc.. has a much better case. Frankly we can't take everyone and it is much more efficient to find them there - the cost of putting up one single bloke in a B&B in the south east + whatever allowance they're given etc.. would go much further in terms of providing accommodation, food etc.. in Turkey.

My point about mental illness was not about all of them, it was specifically regarding at least two, the mall shooting and the guy at the beginning of this thread. Both announced by authorities to have had mental issues.

fair enough, didn't know there was a mental illness aspect in this case... though I would also consider that any hint of mental illness will be something the German authorities will be very keen to pounce up in these sorts of attacks

 

[Amp34]

Agreed there. The way Germany did it wasn't the best option, but it was partly due to the lack of any political will by any other european countries to help, be it the countries between refusing to take any refugees and declared themselves transit countries only, meaning any refugee that got into Europe only had one place to go, and the lack of any help for refugees that got to Turkey/Greece/Jordan from european nations.

Helping people at source would be a lot better, but I just don't think there is the political will to do so. Is each country willing to send billions to make the camps liveable and safe. Are countries willing to take tens of thousands of refugees from the camps, rather than nominal amounts*? How can we help the local economies in the areas of the refugee camps, where there are just not enough jobs for people to earn money to pay for food, clean water, shelter and clothing.

Unless we help sort out those issues we will continue to have people coming to Europe to try and survive. Many of the refugee camps (both outside Syria and inside) are basically akin to jumping out of he frying pan, into the fire. We can't really just say **** em, they aren't British.

*As an example the UK has taken 5,000, out of several million. It doesn't make a jot of difference to the overall issue, but perhaps makes us feel a bit better. In contrast Canada has taken 30,000 (most in the last 6-8 months) and that number will continue to grow.

 

[dowie]

Well the UK and US give the most money to helping refugees in Turkey, Jordan... which goes much further over there really. Germany has the other motive which is it's aging population and pressing need for young workers - thus an incentive for these single unaccompanied men.

No reason why they couldn't have instead simply taken a similar number of people at source. If we're targeting people who could really do with being over here then I don't see any pressing need to have to take in huge numbers anyway.

 

[Xordium]

How do we know Islam has anything to do with them? They could just be violent individuals that happen to be muslim. We don't know, but using preconceived notions to assume they are isn't the right way to go about it.

You are correct they could just be violent individuals!

Who happen to Muslim
Who have pledged their allegiance to a Islamic group
Who follow a book that promotes violence towards non-Muslims

 

[titaniumx3]

I am not having a go at Muslims here, but think about it, the solution to this is only going to come from the millions of people like you, not just the UK, but all of Europe, everywhere possibly,

I do not have a clue what solution that would be so please don't even ask me, but think about it, we all know bombing doesn't seem to work, no country is going to start deporting every Muslim, the options from Non-Muslims are none existent, to me they are it seems.

So what does that leave?

I only see a solution from within, so to speak.

Cool. So we should all collectively organise protests? I'm all for that and it is a shame it isn't being done already (or has it?). To be fair though, I probably wouldn't go as I don't generally see the point in protests, they rarely achieve anything on their own. I also don't think IS will listen to us, they view us as targets just as much as they do you. Just look at the videos of their killings, they are killing way, waaaay, more muslims than non-muslims. They wouldn't view me as a muslim and I'm pretty conservative. I also think that if 36 million people protesting couldn't stop the coalition (legitimate democratic governments) from going to war in Iraq, I find it unlikely crazed religious lunatics with nothing to lose will have their minds changed. They feed on hate and will die by their beliefs even if they are reduced to one man against the entire world. This is the type of enemy we are facing.

So protesting, as noble as it may seem, may not be overly effective. Maybe we should all go back to our countries and stop these terrorists by force? I actually think this is a good option, seriously. All these syrian refugees, especially the young men, should be put into military camps, trained up (using the proper precautions and security measures) and sent back to Syria to find IS (or whatever they are called). Non-syrian Muslims should have the option to do this, but are completely free to decline since they aren't Syrians. Like, my family originate from Bangladesh so I have no business in Sytria. But if Bangladesh became a hotspot for outgoing terrorism, I'd consider it, but I'm not sure because I was born in Britain.

 

[Amp34]

You are correct they could just be violent individuals!

Who happen to Muslim
Who have pledged their allegiance to a Islamic group
Who follow a book that promotes violence towards non-Muslims

I suggest you re-read the posts. We are talking about the specific non terrorist incidents, not the terrorist attacks. None of the ones we are discussing have pledged their allegiance to IS.

 

[Xordium]

I suggest you re-read the posts. We are talking about the specific non terrorist incidents, not the terrorist attacks. None of the ones we are discussing have pledged their allegiance to IS.

Oh you are right. Sorry stupid me! I am sure that the fact the Islamic culture is well known for treating women like dirt and is associated with extremely violent cultures is nothing to do with either. Wasn't Brevik classed as a terror attack how come you don't label one of these as that?

 

[Tefal]

I always find tbe mental illness angle kind of insulting.

Ok fair enough if theyre some kind of phsycopath but its the constant grouping of depression or anxiety into the "oh thats why he murdered a load of people" reasoning thats unsettling.


Homicide is not a symptom of depression and its damaging to all those who suffer from it rhat "mental illness" is just getting clumped together to attempt to justify/reason these attscks.

I

 

[Xordium]

I always find tbe mental illness angle kind of insulting.

I think the angle is (and correct me if I am wrong here) that the people are depressed have nowhere really to turn, feel disenfranchised and then get preyed upon by recruiters etc. They then give these people self-validation etc.

But yes you are totally correct Tefal it's apparently ok to tar one group with a brush but not another.

TBH though it's far more nuanced than that.

Let's face it we know the people recruiting aren't Muslims they are using the religion as a form of control, we know the Saudis aren't Muslims as they are coking it in the Monte Carlo with hookers and we know the people who do these things aren't really Muslims they are people who need an emotional crutch. Well certainly not Muslims as we know them from our daily lives.

These ***** just take what venom they can from the Koran to justify their idiocy. The problem though is that venom is present in the Koran ...

 

[Tefal]

But its always used for the "lone nutters" not radaclised bt anyone too

 

[Uther]

It's deflection from some people for some weird reason away from what turns out to be, in a lot of cases, religious terrorism.
If those same people were of that religious persuasion I could almost understand it, otherwise they just sound like those terminally offended people who just seem to be offended on others behalf.
Apparently the bomber left a video message saying it was a "revenge act because the nation's people are standing in the way of Islam".

 

[Scougar]

I always find tbe mental illness angle kind of insulting.

Ok fair enough if theyre some kind of phsycopath but its the constant grouping of depression or anxiety into the "oh thats why he murdered a load of people" reasoning thats unsettling.


Homicide is not a symptom of depression and its damaging to all those who suffer from it rhat "mental illness" is just getting clumped together to attempt to justify/reason these attscks.

I

What is it when a parent kills all their kids before taking their own life?