A truck ploughs through Christmas market in Berlin
267 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bunguer;51556536]Every thread where there is a terrorist attack we go around in circles and circles.
It doesn't even matter how many terrorist attacks are native or how many problems a country might have, the fact is that random large attacks in populated civillian areas are attributed to the usual suspects ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe[/url]).
You can't put all the attacks in the same bag, this condescending attitude is what will make the far-right rise again.
We need to take measures and speak about this subject without being preached about being nazi sympathizers, what the hell is wrong with you? Do you like to throw around insults like that? Is that a rational argument for you?[/QUOTE]
bucketboy's post isn't bad at all though?
he didn't even call lord m a nazi sympathiser outright, he said that's the vibe he gives off with his attitude. if we can't mention the fostering of far-right ideology when someone [I]explicitly[/I] says they're neglecting to report on it, because they're just not a big enough threat BUT will stop at nothing to paint muslims as a blight upon the world, when the fuck CAN we mention it?
[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;51556688]It was supposed that to be implicit as just saying it is redundant, but well, seems that even the most simple of sentences can be not understood nowdays. Thanks for the explanation to the rest of people.[/QUOTE]
To be honest I don't think the issue is entirely with them in this case.
I had some trouble understanding your post too, because you screwed up the grammar in a few places and seem to have forgotten words (e.g. 'here' or 'in Germany' in the last sentence of your post). It also was definitely easier for me to figure it out than for most other users, because you used some very German phrasing.
Anyway:
While it's completely sensible for us (at first, at least) to assume certain political and cultural understanding when talking to other Germans, I wouldn't say this usually works internationally. It's in most cases not even a matter of different values, but people in different countries tend to have slightly different priorities and very different expectations towards political discussion, since for example election campaigns rarely cross borders. Add to this the fact that there's a lot of English language 'reporting' floating around that paints a somewhat distorted picture of Germany and you have the perfect environment to create misunderstandings.
I usually try to add short explanations and translations to my posts when local issues come up and I expect or know there's a cultural difference that isn't widely known, which seems to work pretty well. If you discuss politics you usually really have to be super explicit to avoid misunderstandings though.
-snip-
[QUOTE=bunguer;51557068]Isn't bad at all? "maybe you should stop taking right wing media viagra pills for a little while so maybe you can open your tiny claustrophobic mind. every thing you keep preaching about on this forums makes you look like a nazi sympathiser."
If you support harsher control on migrants, support the funding of refugee zones on culturally closer zones (but safe ones) and defend the idea that this culture clash is unneeded you typically get that type of comment. These politics are not even a classical left ideology! (how else you gonna support a complex and expensive social system with uncontrolled migration?)[/QUOTE]
As far as the situation in Germany goes it was warranted (we [I]do[/I] have way more trouble with nazis than with islamists, [I]no[/I] disproportionate amount of crime committed by refugees according to the last official statistic I saw, and what !LORD M! propagates here [I]is[/I] extremely close to the stuff you get from the extreme right here in Germany), just the language isn't exactly close to what's appropriate.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51553670]again: how is this not rhetoric you could use against neo-nazis and white supremacist groups in general? why are you so vocal about intolerance and yet rarely condemn those groups? why aren't you making 5 threads a week about what random nazis did somewhere, like you do with muslims?[/QUOTE]
Feel free to provide any links that show how many people are being frequently murdered by neo nazi and white supremacist groups.
I understand they exist and condemn their actions but to be fair is there a comparison to be made?
[QUOTE=bunguer;51557068]Isn't bad at all? "maybe you should stop taking right wing media viagra pills for a little while so maybe you can open your tiny claustrophobic mind. every thing you keep preaching about on this forums makes you look like a nazi sympathiser."
If you support harsher control on migrants, support the funding of refugee zones on culturally closer zones (but safe ones) and defend the idea that this culture clash is unneeded you typically get that type of comment. These politics are not even a classical left ideology! (how else you gonna support a complex and expensive social system with uncontrolled migration?)[/QUOTE]
You're making some nasty implications regarding the context here. Lord m wasn't talking about harsher immigration, or anything else you mentioned, for that matter. He was talking about not posting neo-nazi incidents because he doesn't consider them bad enough. Even though his motto is not tolerating the intolerant, even though he's always harping on about not having an agenda and being completely unbiased. It's bullshit, it's dishonest, and it's much, much worse than a little bit of snark in a post that calls it out
[QUOTE=Tamschi;51553783][emphasis mine]
Thanks for finally specifying what you meant previously.
I think I can confidently say that I haven't seen a single poster in Sensationalist Headlines in the last year that was defending Islamist extremism.
(Though... I think there may have been one from Saudi Arabia(?) defending extremely questionable authoritarian practices. I don't quite remember what the thread was about, unfortunately.)[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has suggested that anyone has defended Islamic extremism but there does seem to be a few that are very reluctant to condemn Islamic extremism.
[QUOTE=mchapra;51556135][url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mus...merica/5333619[/url]
[/QUOTE]
I wish this source would post it's metric on what constitutes a terrorist attack in America.
[quote]According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company[/quote]
Cause right now there is more Jewish terrorist attacks by their conclusion and I call complete bullshit on that.
Doesn't help that this is a think-tank specifically for globalization in Canada. Talk about some potential agendas there.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51557240]I wish this source would post it's metric on what constitutes a terrorist attack in America.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#terror_05sum[/url]
what the fbi considers a terrorist incident
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51557154]Feel free to provide any links that show how many people are being frequently murdered by neo nazi and white supremacist groups.
I understand they exist and condemn their actions but to be fair is there a comparison to be made?[/QUOTE]
179 confirmed in Germany since 1990
[url]https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesopfer_rechtsextremer_Gewalt_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland[/url]
Over 180 according to [url]http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/rechte-gewalt-im-schatten-der-republik-1.3274172[/url]
This is in Germany alone of course.
Also the Federal Agency for Crime(??) issued a warning for potential new attacks
[url]http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-11/bka-statistik-rechte-gewalt-politiker[/url]
This of course excludes ISIS which is a form of Islamofascism that drives up the numbers to thousands
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51557263]179 confirmed in Germany since 1990
[URL]https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesopfer_rechtsextremer_Gewalt_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland[/URL]
Over 180 according to [URL]http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/rechte-gewalt-im-schatten-der-republik-1.3274172[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Actually 75, not 179
[QUOTE]2015 nannte das BKA 75, die Amadeu Antonio Stiftung dagegen 178 Todesopfer und elf Verdachtsfälle.[2][/QUOTE]
The Amadeau Antonio Stiftung is NOT a trustable source, they are incredibly biased.
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51557263]179 confirmed in Germany since 1990
[url]https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesopfer_rechtsextremer_Gewalt_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland[/url]
Over 180 according to [url]http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/dachau/rechte-gewalt-im-schatten-der-republik-1.3274172[/url]
This is in Germany alone of course.
Also the Federal Agency for Crime(??) issued a warning for potential new attacks
[url]http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-11/bka-statistik-rechte-gewalt-politiker[/url]
This of course excludes ISIS which is a form of Islamofascism that drives up the numbers to thousands[/QUOTE]
So an average of 7 a year, this 1 incident has already outweighed one year, so thanks for confirming there really isn't any comparison.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51554362]Reforms are bullshit. People evolve, religion hardly does.[/QUOTE]What is a religion, if not the people who follow it?
If the majority of people who follow a certain religion have completely changed their behavior from how their fellow believers from previous times behaved, then we can say that the religion has reformed, couldn't we?
You don't have to change the holy books; but the fact of the matter is, most Christians [B]today[/B] don't believe in the bad parts of Christianity (the old testament and a few parts of the new testament). Even priests and pastors often don't believe in these parts of the religion.
[QUOTE]Reform movements of 16th century were mostly more radical than Catholics themselves. Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon werent great humanists. Especially when it comes to Antisemitism.[/QUOTE]How are 16th century movements relevant to [B]now[/B]? I am talking about how Christians behave now, not how they behaved 500 years ago.
[QUOTE]The reasons as to why Europe is peaceful and ME is not is complex, but the reasons for ME conflicts go all the way back to Kerbela, Crusades, Mongol Invasion, and 17th-18th century advent of Feudalism under Ottoman-ruled African and Arab provinces, and Europes's peace can be traced back to Rome, 11th century Renaissance, Colonialism, Centralisation of power, .............................[/QUOTE]And I never said that the political issues in the middle-east weren't a factor in these attacks; my point was that the backward teachings of Islam play a major role (but not the only role) in these attacks. My other point was to counter the belief that "If Islam didn't exist, then these attacks would still exist". My opinion was that this belief is likely to be false, because we rarely see non-Muslim Arabs carrying out such terrible attacks, and because most of these attacks are very religiously motivated.
I love the fact that whenever leftists get self conscious about Islamic terrorism, they bring up "white terrorism", without mentioning the per-capita numbers of Muslims v. White people in the country.
I saw some similar numbers for the United States and even though Muslims make up <1% of the population, they accounted for like half the terrorism deaths for that decade.
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51557263][...]
This of course excludes ISIS which is a form of Islamofascism that drives up the numbers to thousands[/QUOTE]
Until very recently we had less recent victims of fatal ISIS attacks (or islamist attacks in general) compared to nazi attacks in Germany, but the attack today would change that if they turn out to be responsible. (I personally think that's not unlikely, but there currently is nothing to confirm that afaik.)
In terms of attacks that weren't fatal, right-wing violence most likely holds the top spot by quite a margin here, though.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51557306]So an average of 7 a year, this 1 incident has already outweighed one year, so thanks for confirming there really isn't any comparison.[/QUOTE]
It's also the only probably Islamist incident of this magnitude here.
The overall number of large deadly incidents that aren't accidents is very small in Germany, so you can't compare them on a yearly basis due to how much the numbers vary from year to year.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51557327]I love the fact that whenever leftists get self conscious about Islamic terrorism, they bring up "white terrorism", without mentioning the per-capita numbers of Muslims v. White people in the country.
I saw some similar numbers for the United States and even though Muslims make up <1% of the population, they accounted for like half the terrorism deaths for that decade.[/QUOTE]
how hard is it for you to have a normal, human interaction with one of the leftists here? the quote button is right there, and yet you insist on addressing the imaginary lefty boogeyman instead of, you know, a person. i guess you can't lose when you argue with yourself
[QUOTE=Tamschi;51557376]In terms of attacks that weren't fatal, right-wing violence most likely holds the top spot by quite a margin here, though.[/QUOTE]
What do you define as attacks? Violence against other people? Politically motivated?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51557327]I love the fact that whenever leftists get self conscious about Islamic terrorism, they bring up "white terrorism", without mentioning the per-capita numbers of Muslims v. White people in the country.
I saw some similar numbers for the United States and even though Muslims make up <1% of the population, they accounted for like half the terrorism deaths for that decade.[/QUOTE]
So are you gonna acknowledge the person you have a problem with or are you too afraid to have a two way conversation about this?
[QUOTE=Tamschi;51557376]Until very recently we had less recent victims of fatal ISIS attacks (or islamist attacks in general) compared to nazi attacks in Germany, but the attack today would change that if they turn out to be responsible. (I personally think that's not unlikely, but there currently is nothing to confirm that afaik.)
In terms of attacks that weren't fatal, right-wing violence most likely holds the top spot by quite a margin here, though.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
It's also the only probably Islamist incident of this magnitude here.
The overall number of large deadly incidents that aren't accidents is very small in Germany, so you can't compare them on a yearly basis due to how much the numbers vary from year to year.[/QUOTE]
Well it shows there isn't a comparison.
[url]http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652765/Terrorist-attacks-Germany-Terrorism-Foiled-plots-Threat-Security-Islamic-State-ISIS[/url]
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51557408]how hard is it for you to have a normal, human interaction with one of the leftists here? the quote button is right there, and yet you insist on addressing the imaginary lefty boogeyman instead of, you know, a person. i guess you can't lose when you argue with yourself[/QUOTE]
Your deflection style of debate is transparent, you never address the actual post.
[QUOTE=Firewarrior;51557432]What do you define as attacks? Violence against other people? Politically motivated?[/QUOTE]
Right-wing politically motivated violence against other people, yes. There were 93 such cases in 2015 in Saxony-Anhalt alone (compared to 41 left-wing ones and 1 committed by a foreigner) [URL="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-kleine-anfrage-in-sachsen-anhalt-belegt-straftaten-von-rechts-a-1110324.html"]according to the reply to a statistics request by the afd[/URL][URL="https://archive.is/DXTC6"].[/URL] I assume it varies depending on the area though.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51557408]how hard is it for you to have a normal, human interaction with one of the leftists here? the quote button is right there, and yet you insist on addressing the imaginary lefty boogeyman instead of, you know, a person. i guess you can't lose when you argue with yourself[/QUOTE]
In this case I was referencing Oberhauser with his neo-nazi stats.
Why are you comparing who is more "evil" or servere? Just because shitty thing 1 happens, doesn't make it okay for shitty thing 2 to happen. It is both shit and we should do our best to prevent shitty things from happening.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;51557487]Right-wing politically motivated violence against other people, yes. There were 93 such cases in 2015 in Saxony-Anhalt alone (compared to 41 left-wing ones and 1 committed by a foreigner) [URL="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-kleine-anfrage-in-sachsen-anhalt-belegt-straftaten-von-rechts-a-1110324.html"]according to the reply to a statistics request by the afd[/URL][URL="https://archive.is/DXTC6"].[/URL] I assume it varies depending on the area though.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about this study but I saw a European article (I think it was German, I'll try to find it) where they conveniently lumped Islamic violence in with "right wing terrorism".
I'm glad you made this distinction here though. Sometimes "terrorism" or "hate crimes" are defined as simple shit like shouting nigger at someone or drawing a swastika somewhere. Not exactly on the same level as this incident.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;51557539]Why are you comparing who is more "evil" or servere? Just because shitty thing 1 happens, doesn't make it okay for shitty thing 2 to happen. It is both shit and we should do our best to prevent shitty things from happening.[/QUOTE]
A death is a death. Violence is violence. But when we want to solve these problems, we need to find out why they are happening. One side is downplaying or outright denying the existence of a problem with Islam, while trumping up "right-wing" or "white" terrorism as a way to absolve Islam with a whatsboutism. If Islam plays a role in why people commit terrorist attacks, then we should explore that, and discuss whether we want more Muslims in our countries.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51557553]I'm glad you made this distinction here though. Sometimes "terrorism" or "hate crimes" are defined as simple shit like shouting nigger at someone or drawing a swastika somewhere. Not exactly on the same level as this incident.[/QUOTE]
This is the danger with using catch all phrases and assuming everything within that category is equivilent.
I went through ~30 of the so called terrorist acts listed in some of the links posted earlier and the majority of them from that report were environmental activists setting empty construction equipment on fire.
I mean, yeah, it's not good, but it's not even in the same category as killing as many innocent people as you possibly can.
I also think it's telling that the large majority of stats posted start after 9/11 and end anywhere from 2005 to 2010 when many of the large Islamic terrorist attacks have happened since then and 9/11 dwarfing all other attacks.
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51557306]So an average of 7 a year, this 1 incident has already outweighed one year, so thanks for confirming there really isn't any comparison.[/QUOTE]
This is not how statistics work.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firewarrior;51557290]Actually 75, not 179
The Amadeau Antonio Stiftung is NOT a trustable source, they are incredibly biased.[/QUOTE]
The are based on cases archived by several newspapers and given how time and time again the police and the government have proven to underestimate cases and of course the big mess that is the NSU case where they took in an immigrant as the perpetrator and where witnesses are dying like flies (and are not included in this number btw.) I trust the newspapers more.
Take it how you want.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51557587]This is the danger with using catch all phrases and assuming everything within that category is equivilent.
I went through ~30 of the so called terrorist acts listed in some of the links posted earlier and the majority of them from that report were environmental activists setting empty construction equipment on fire.
I mean, yeah, it's not good, but it's not even in the same category as killing as many innocent people as you possibly can.
I also think it's telling that the large majority of stats posted start after 9/11 and end anywhere from 2005 to 2010 when many of the large Islamic terrorist attacks have happened since then and 9/11 dwarfing all other attacks.[/QUOTE]
I want to see a list of terrorist attacks in the West from somewhere like 1990-present, with motives listed. We all know which ideology would be over represented here per-capita.
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51557591]This is not how statistics work.[/QUOTE]
Is there a comparison though?
No, of course there isn't.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51557621]I want to see a list of terrorist attacks in the West from somewhere like 1990-present, with motives listed. We all know which ideology would be over represented here per-capita.[/QUOTE]
To focus even more, I would want a breakdown of terrorist attacks in which the goal was to kill large numbers of people. I would also be interested in the timespan of 2010-present as a good indication of the present situation. A lot has changed very recently (notably, the rise of ISIS).
Those are the most relevant.
[QUOTE=mchapra;51557256][url]https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#terror_05sum[/url]
what the fbi considers a terrorist incident[/QUOTE]
Well as previously mentioned, if you include firebombings of buildings with mass shootings/suicide bombings, your data might be quite different and answer the question in a completely different way.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51557621]I want to see a list of terrorist attacks in the West from somewhere like 1990-present, with motives listed. We all know which ideology would be over represented here per-capita.[/QUOTE]
lets start from the bottom.
what do you think drives people to commit acts of terror?
if 'islam', then that is wrong. you forget the fact that nearly a quarter of people are muslims.
so, what else? surely the treatment of them and inane fear would be the next logical place to go.
so what about that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.