Any clues on who how or why beyond the usual "we are investigating possible motives" line, or is this still a developing story?
Possible, If some person attempted damaging their headquarters will be AfD success like how NSDAP trick little boy to entirely burn German parliament down.
We really got some people on here rating winner advocating for potential politically motivated terrorist attacks, huh.
You're forgetting this is a place people wish death or injury on a certain individual of the orange persuasion.
Anyway, like this guy says if you have a problem with the AfD blowing them up is not the answer and will actually just galvanise their cause.
Martin Dulig, Saxony's deputy prime minister and a member of the
center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), condemned the attack Friday
morning on Twitter.
"There's no justification for the attack on
the AfD office in Döbeln," he wrote. "Violence is not a means of
democracy. The AfD must be fought politically and not with explosives.
This attack helps the AfD and hurts democracy."
terrorism is okay if its targetted towards people i dont like
Oh for FFS, i can point a billion times where you've guys have rated something with "Winner" or "Funny" that was horrid and/or terrible.
And there has been countless times i and others have pointed out people like you who have done thins. Only for you guys to go "Huehuehue you care about ratings? Lol". So quit being a bunch of Goddamn Hypocrites cause you lot pull the same bullshit.
Its the AfD, so could be their doing, then again, no real clue who it could be, they don't really have that many friends.
Could also be far left.
Considering it was 7:20pm, it seems to be just for show though, not an attempt to actively harm people.
I'm not going to cry over some nazis getting their office blown up, fuck them and fuck their office
"Oh won't somebody please think of the fascists?"
More like "oh won't somebody please think of the human beings?"
Violence is very rarely the answer to a disagreement, because it sets precedent. We can't just go around threatening people's lives because you disagree with them. Before you inevitably point out that AfD threatens the Muslim community of Germany, need I really refer to a certain Gandhi quote about an eye for an eye?
never forget how the allies used facts and logic and gahndi quotes to defeat fascists in ww2
"Nazis". Lmao. Everyone is called a nazi nowadays for everything. If you criticize economy migrants in Europe, you are a nazi. If you criticize illegal migration, you are a nazi. If you don't want these people in your country, you are a nazi (woah, the entire population of Switzerland are nazis!)
Ah yes, the classic "i'm not a nazi, i just don't want these brown people in my country" argument
That's a cute attitude to take to a group of fascists who clearly don't follow the same line of thought. You think they care about your liberal sensibilities? You're defending people who would usurp that very line of thought and principle as soon as they gained power. It's naive to think that the far-right should be treated as just another player within liberal democracy when they're eroding the rights of minorities all around the world, even in the US.
After the logic of your argument here, all people of Switzerland are nazis because they don't want these people in their country. And not just them, people of countries like Korea, Japan, etc. as well
It's not about not wanting "these brown people" (nice focus on their skin colour) in your country. It's about not wanting illegal migrants in your country. It's about not wanting fake refugees in your country. It's about not wanting potential terrorists in your country. It's about not wanting economy migrants in your country. The majority of refugees that come into these countries are men. The minority are women and children. Additionally, they have an increased crime rate compared to people of the same amount and other ethnic and race, even admitted by Merkel. You can't call these people refugees anyway because they move through so many countries just to get into a different country. The actual solution is helping them in their country, or neighbour country. The flood of millions of people coming into your country is frightening (and you aren't a nazi if you dislike this future of a country, you are just dumb if you think so).
Isolationism is definitely fascist and "economic migrants" is nothing but a dogwhistle term for brown people. You can't help them in their country because NATO, Germany included is responsible for ruining their countries in the first place.
Also you having more empathy for the cute little wannabe fascist dictator office than for people who are fleeing from poverty and/or war speaks volumes about you. Eat shit.
You forgot countries like the USA as well. And no, "economy migrants" is not a dogwhistle term for brown people. They are often associated with it because they are often exactly doing that. And we have it happening here as well already.
Holy shit, dude.
Where do you read that I have "more sympathy for a cute little wannabe fascist dictator" than for people who are "fleeing from poverty and/or war"? Why do you want me to eat shit?
This response by you is speaking volumes in your argumentation. I told you all the reasons why I don't like how the open borders policy is causing so many wrong people to get into our country. You ignored pretty much everything in my post up there. I'm not going to repeat myself here again, you can read it once more, since you apparently just ignored everything to just to tell me to "eat shit". You aren't living in this country, you aren't following all German news about all politicians, not everything gets translated to international media outlets. Many incidents are downright secluded and can only be found within local communites but not in newspapers. You should really be careful with baseless accusations like that about other people. Also, be more polite in the future.
All of these terms have been and are being used by racists to imply "I don't want to see brown people in my country". That's what a dogwhistle is.
"Brown people" from poor and war-thorn countries resort to immigrating illegally when immigrating legally is not an option, often as a result of policies pushed by the right and motivated by racism. Furthermore, immigrants are valued by society only by their potential usefulness to capitalism and not by their actual needs of a stable and fulfilling life. If one genuinely values the needs of the people over the needs of the institutions of society, there can be no ethical justification for criminalizing those who cross borders (a.k.a lines in the sand) in a desperate search for a better life.
Who gets to make the distinction between a "real" refugee and a "fake" refugee? Refugees flee the poor conditions of their homes in search of better conditions elsewhere. Who are you to decide how the conditions they flee from are genuine or not?
"Potential terrorists" is possibly the most egregious of characterisations. Again, who gets to decide this? Anyone can be a potential terrorist, and more often than not, terrorism is committed by citizens of the country they commit terrorism in.
And what could be so bad with migrants who flee for economic reasons? Is having no future and no livelyhood not enough of a reason to move from a place? Who gets to decide that?
That's a lot of unsubstantiated claims. I would ask for sources but I myself argue mostly with subjectivity, so I would rather question how one can come to characterize a whole, diverse group of people as "useless". Let me guess, a persons utility to the arbitrary needs of the nation-state and the capitalist economy is the only utility you recognize? Because that's what it seems like.
Why not? Don't you realize that crossing through countries is more often than not necessary to getting to your destination?
Does Germany or any other country in Europe actually do this in any significant capacity?
What about people with different experiences and customs frighten you?
As you can see, I've "answered" a lot of your claims with questions. These aren't necessarily questions that need a concrete answer, these are questions that you can ask yourself and reflect upon.
countries like Turkey or Libanon have already taken in millions of refugees. Many, many more than any European country has
conditions in the refugee camps in Turkey are awful. There are no jobs for refugees there. I recall reading about refugee children having to resort to prostitution or other such horrible things. Would you rather sit out the war in your home country in a country where you can actually live a decent life and have a job until it's over, or a country like Turkey? Refugees who travel to Europe are refugees.
Refugees cannot be 'economic migrants'. You cannot be given asylum if you are an economic refugee.
As for the refugees not integrating and not finding jobs: More refugees find jobs in Germany, integration going 'pretty we.. Learning the language and building a network to find a job also takes time.
There is no 'mass immigration'.
This will just lead to tit for tat.
It always does. :/
Most bombers are their own first victims, it could easily have been an accidental detonation.