So nearly 24 hours on, we have learnt quite a lot more.
We have learnt that the perpetrator of last night's atrocity was a French National and a low-life scumbag (like so many "terrorist" operatives) who first attempted to murder a policeman in 2001.
So my question for Donald Trump is: What is the difference between last night's attack and the one he committed in 2001? Why exactly did you bracket last night's as terrorism, whereas 2001's attack was patently not?
We both know what the difference is, namely that terrorism requires a political end goal. The previous behaviour of the individual suggested no such political motive, and was during a period of his life where he was also involved with armed robberies and other crimes which are more common with street gangs.
It's the same reason why a prolific gang around Lambeth and Southwark, who made a huge play on their faith, were treated as a gang and not a terrorist group; whilst they used religion as a tool of fear, there was no political motive. I would suggest that attacking police officers in the run up to an election is the very definition of political.
Not to mention the very way that this was carried out, purposefully going out of his way to attack a stationary carrier full of officers. That's a far cry from the previous attempted murder where he was trying to flee. The previous attempted murder was situational and a secondary offence committed in the process of escaping a prior one, this attack was the sole offence - there was no motive, he was not trying to get away and he was prepared solely to carry it out.
We have also learnt that the perpetrator of the Dortmund attack was a German-Russian citizen motivated by greed. . He was a financial speculator. Who on here, as the news came in, remotely considered such a motive? Not me, for sure, even though I wondered why ISIS would attack a club team bus, and why that one.
In both cases ISIS quickly claimed the perpetrators were "their soldiers". It would appear that in neither case was this true.
Neither case? So we're going to completely ignore the note that the attacker had, where he praised ISIS?
So I stick by my criticism of Trump which I wrote here last night. But I will refine it a little. I now regard Trump's remarks as a deliberate attempt to encourage the French electorate to believe that these events strengthen the case for a vote for Le Pen. It is as far from statesmanship as you can get, it is cynical, opportunist and more than a little sinister.
Yes, Trumps remarks - which were eerily similar to remarks from: (a) French presidential candidates, and (b) representatives of Australia and Britain - are clearly sinister..
We get it - you don't like Donald Trump; that simply makes you part of the majority. It doesn't need to be brought in to everything, it doesn't need to destroy unrelated conversations, and you don't need to struggle to make tenuous links.
It's absolutely tiresome, and I'm fed up of defending the muppet purely because of the level of nonsense that is directed towards him. In this case, he's just being slated for doing what other leaders did.
All you've done is drag politics from thousands of miles away, directly in to a discussion about someone getting murdered. You've done exactly what you accuse Trump of: politicising a horrible incident. Sadly it all feels familiar too.
Not sure this mess can be solved by just getting on with life and pretending it doesn't exist.
I disagree. Do you think there's a better response than simply to carry on doing the things that terrorists are trying to disrupt?
Ordinary people in London, Stockholm, Paris and Nice going about their daily lives undeterred, the day after the terrorist attacks is exactly the response we should see.
Exactly. The security forces continue their work of taking these people down, and our part is to show that we're not going to let the wankers trouble us in our daily lives.
The USA has an endemic rate of violent death far higher than these inadequate thugs will ever cause in Europe. Trump should look at that, but he won't.
From Reuters: After an emergency meeting of security officials, Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said security forces, including elite units, were on alert to back up the 50,000 police earmarked to ensure safety during the election. "The government is fully mobilized. Nothing must be allowed to impede the fundamental democratic process of our country," Cazeneuve told reporters. "It falls to us not to give in to fear and intimidation and manipulation, which would play into the hands of the enemy."
and in the same piece: U.S. President Donald Trump, whose shares an anti-globalisation agenda with Le Pen, tweeted that the shooting would influence the vote.
"Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!" he said.
However, previous attacks that have taken place shortly before elections, including the November 2015 attacks in Paris ahead of regional polls, and a shooting in a Jewish school before the 2012 presidentials, did not appear to boost the scores of those espousing tougher national security.
An assault on a soldier in February at Paris's Louvre museum by a man wielding a machete also had no obvious impact on this year's opinion polls, which have consistently said that voters see unemployment and the trustworthiness of politicians as bigger issues.
So, you think it is something inherent in Islam to lead Muslims to kill people randomly, despite the fact that this is not something that happens in most places where Muslims live. The flip-side of the Dawkins piece could equally be "regressive celebrity atheists giving cover for Racist terror". The refusal to see people as anything other than a monolith is part of the problem. The only Muslim I've ever met who was approving of some of the stuff done by IS was far more bothered by Shias and Ahmadis than the West. The fact that Saudi Arabia is committing war crimes in Yemen against Shiites is testament to Islam not being the monolith that you and Dawkins seek.
Of course the Quran does have loads of dodgy passages in it. So does the Bible, but by and large most Christians don't do that sort of thing (though some killers do claim to act in the name of the Christian God such as the ones who attack abortion clinics in the US). Buddhist texts don't have anything much in them that includes killing people, yet Buddhist monks have been instrumental in violence against Muslims in Burma and Hindus in Sri Lanka. So, why is it that uniquely Muslims will do this and not the others? (They don't is the answer).
To take somewhere closer to home, repression against Catholics was regularly cited by the IRA as their best "recruiting sergeant". So, on that basis, if all Muslims are somehow complicit in all Muslim terror, at what point do the measures taken against them specifically flip over into growing support for Islamists? And why is it only Muslims that this applies to? Should all Norwegians be held to account for Breivik? All share-traders for the attack on the Dortmund team bus? All white Americans for Dylan Roof? All white Englishmen for the killing of Jo Cox? Of course not; but it is the logic of the position you hold.
For the record, I am a card-carrying atheist and have spent a fair amount of time arguing against religion. But I will not divorce people's beliefs from their behaviour or their context.
If Norwegians started killing people across Europe do you seriously think Norwegians would not be held accountable? Should all Germans living through the Nazi atrocities be held accountable? Many people think they should. Many people think not. The important thing is the debate about whether they should be held accountable, to this day, never gets shut down for fear of offending the sensibilities of the German people. Like you I am an atheist. But, unlike you I am no longer willing to hide my contempt for all religions, particular blood thirsty violent ones that think I should be hacked to death because of my views. And in the free secular European country in which I live I have the right to express that contempt.
Interesting point about Germans given the revenge taken by Soviet forces and the mass expulsion of ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe. Is expressing your contempt enough? Would you advocate the proscription of religions?
Absolutely not. But when it is warranted people in the free post medieval world should be free to condem and ridicule those specific religious beliefs and practices that are no longer acceptable. Much as Scientology today is subject to endless scrutiny and redicule.
In addition, every child in state education systems in Europe should be taught the science of evolution and the history of how primitive man embraced many thousands of myths and religions to help him understand the world around him, every week from the age of 11 until they leave school.
You'd be too late, the Jesuits used to claim (17th Century I think) that if they we're given the child by the age of seven, they'd have the adult for life.
Sciences should begin to be taught in primary school.
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
I think we should always be wary of state defined education. You make an interesting point about curricula, the problem of course is that truly public education will already do as you suggest. Independent, free and faith schools I cannot speak for. I would certainly support the abolition of all faith schools, the emphasis on all.
All you've done is drag politics from thousands of miles away, directly in to a discussion about someone getting murdered. You've done exactly what you accuse Trump of: politicising a horrible incident. Sadly it all feels familiar too.
Utter bollocks, Lucky. My point, in the earlier hours (well minutes really) of this thread, was simply to try and caution against jumping to conclusions. FWIW I was asking myself why this terrorist only shot at policemen and not other citizens in such a public place. It felt "different" to Berlin and Nice, just as the Dortmund attack. Why not just wait at least a few hours to see what emerges? But oh no, from the comfort of their keyboards some people on this thread had it all nailed. And then along comes the POTUS, saying he has "just walked in and seen this" and issues his tweets. Issue politicised. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest I further politicised it. I was reacting to what a politician said, FFS.
When the French people go to the Polls tomorrow they will vote with their heads and their hearts. I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not. France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State. If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
Donald Trump reacted to the news during a joint press conference with Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni at the White House. “First of all, our condolences from our country to the people of France,” he said. “Again, it’s happening, it seems. I just saw it as I was walking in, so that’s a terrible thing.
“It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant and I’ve been saying it for a long time.”
Utter total wanker.
What's he supposed to say? You may think he's a wanker but saying that based on that statement just makes you look muggy.
Well that's for you to decide, but it's OK for you to take a view when you "just walked in" and presumably switched on Sky, but in the time since you wrote that, the report I am monitoring has already withdrawn its previous report that a second policeman has died, and the police have said that the perpertrator is known to them. For what? As a terrorist suspect? Or something else entirely?
And that's OK, for you, an ordinary Joe, to react that way and then find out that a lot of things turn out differently. And you can gob off on here, and no real harm is done.
It's not OK when you are the President of the United States and he seems to have no more self restraint that you.
I have to say i do agree with Prague on this one. I think what Prague meant was that the POTUS' response was somewhat undiplomatic and insensitive, he almost unintentionally downplayed the attack by: 1) saying he was right all along 2) point people back to his own agenda.
What's worse is Trump always goes down the whole 'Oh its very Bad, very very bad' 'a terrible thing, a really terrible thing' - his idea of getting a 'trump message' across is to quote something, and then repeat it in a slightly different order for maximum trump effect.
The guy is a complete and utter knob and will systematically destroy many government relationships around the world, but not before his own.
And that ladies and gents, is my Saturday morning political rant. Apologies.
When the French people go to the Polls tomorrow they will vote with their heads and their hearts. I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not. France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State. If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
Agree with you BD - I think Le Pen is in for a good chance, having read most of the candidates agenda's hers is actually quite appealing towards the 35 hour week etc etc, not just her immigration and referendum points.
When the French people go to the Polls tomorrow they will vote with their heads and their hearts. I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not. France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State. If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
Agree with you BD - I think Le Pen is in for a good chance, having read most of the candidates agenda's hers is actually quite appealing towards the 35 hour week etc etc, not just her immigration and referendum points.
The 35 hour week. I bet that's a policy the Tories will be rushing to copy.
I apologise in advance for posting this link as i got sick of seeing them in the brexit threads (primarily as they are biased) but this one i find shocking.
What point were you trying to make by posting this, Chippy?
Were you making the point that there are lots of terrorist acts? Or that there are only a very small proportion that take place in Western Europe (so far this month four out of 87)? Or that there is a vanishingly small chance of a civilian being killled by a terror attack in WEstern Europe (four)?
Or were you reinforcing your view that these lists "are biased" or at least unreliable? (For reference, the list currently (at the time of writing) includes one attack dated 22 April).
The amount of terrorist incidents. Do you mind me asking why you always ask people to explain themselves.
Sure. It's a means of understanding someone else's point of view, with the purpose of being able to extend a debate, meaningfully. I usually do it when someone hasn't made a point very clearly.
When you say you wanted to highlight the "amount of terrorist attacks", do you mean that you think there is currently a high number? Or a low number? Are you making the point that the number of terrorist attacks is increasing or decreasing?
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
That's interesting and a bit surprising. I can't criticise you for the way you feel. But it was demonstrably more dangerous in the 90s, although people are being allowed to believer they're in more danger now.
Maybe it's a good thing that we are all wary and vigilant. But maybe we are being encouraged to be scared of terrorists nowadays because it feeds into the government's objectives and we weren't in the 90s because it didn't. Who knows?
I worked all over central London from 1993 through to 2010, both driving and using public transport, and I have to say that I felt safer from 1993 through to 2005 when I was working in Baker Street and 56 people were killed in the 7/7 attacks.
I feel wary these days, even going into my local relatively small cities of Limoges and Brive.
Felt much safer in the 90s. I think most people probably did
We didn't have rolling news and internet speculation in the early 1990s. People often have a fear of being a victim of crime which is disproportionate to the actual risk. so, more chance of being killed in a car crash than by a terrorist for instance.
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 70s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Felt much safer in the 90s. I think most people probably did
We didn't have rolling news and internet speculation in the early 1990s. People often have a fear of being a victim of crime which is disproportionate to the actual risk. so, more chance of being killed in a car crash than by a terrorist for instance.
Regardless of the reason, the question was - for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
Felt much safer in the 90s. I think most people probably did
We didn't have rolling news and internet speculation in the early 1990s. People often have a fear of being a victim of crime which is disproportionate to the actual risk. so, more chance of being killed in a car crash than by a terrorist for instance.
Felt much safer in the 90s. I think most people probably did
We didn't have rolling news and internet speculation in the early 1990s. People often have a fear of being a victim of crime which is disproportionate to the actual risk. so, more chance of being killed in a car crash than by a terrorist for instance.
That wasn't the question though was it
Seemed worthwhile speculating as to why. I also felt safer in the 90s.
Felt much safer in the 90s. I think most people probably did
We didn't have rolling news and internet speculation in the early 1990s. People often have a fear of being a victim of crime which is disproportionate to the actual risk. so, more chance of being killed in a car crash than by a terrorist for instance.
That wasn't the question though was it
Seemed worthwhile speculating as to why. I also felt safer in the 90s.
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Regarding your last quote. I had no way of knowing, but "the Belgian" really proved my point. On Thursday I simply did not find a BBC report of a second individual being involved despite another poster quoting the BBC as his source, followed by a rather perjorative remark about Brussels. We now learn that the Belgian referred to handed himself in to police. I think we can all agree that real ISIS trained people don't do that. In turn when ISIS claimed responsibility they referred to a Belgian. They also claimed responsibility for the Dortmund attack. We all ought to know by now that this is what terrorist organisations do, it is part of the propaganda game. All I was arguing for was a bit of time for the facts to emerge.
Tell me, (and absolutely not to pick an argument) what was your initial conclusion about the Dortmund attack?
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
The public weren't targets of terrorist action in the 90s? Really?
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
The public weren't targets of terrorist action in the 90s? Really?
So you believe people feel safer now than in the 90s despite what has been said here? You agree that it is just because of 24 hr rolling news, as was the point I was answering?
I said generally, and I referred to the IRA and ETA to answer that point is that unfair? I think not.
Comments
It's absolutely tiresome, and I'm fed up of defending the muppet purely because of the level of nonsense that is directed towards him. In this case, he's just being slated for doing what other leaders did.
All you've done is drag politics from thousands of miles away, directly in to a discussion about someone getting murdered. You've done exactly what you accuse Trump of: politicising a horrible incident. Sadly it all feels familiar too.
After an emergency meeting of security officials, Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said security forces, including elite units, were on alert to back up the 50,000 police earmarked to ensure safety during the election.
"The government is fully mobilized. Nothing must be allowed to impede the fundamental democratic process of our country," Cazeneuve told reporters. "It falls to us not to give in to fear and intimidation and manipulation, which would play into the hands of the enemy."
and in the same piece:
U.S. President Donald Trump, whose shares an anti-globalisation agenda with Le Pen, tweeted that the shooting would influence the vote.
"Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!" he said.
However, previous attacks that have taken place shortly before elections, including the November 2015 attacks in Paris ahead of regional polls, and a shooting in a Jewish school before the 2012 presidentials, did not appear to boost the scores of those espousing tougher national security.
An assault on a soldier in February at Paris's Louvre museum by a man wielding a machete also had no obvious impact on this year's opinion polls, which have consistently said that voters see unemployment and the trustworthiness of politicians as bigger issues.
I think we should always be wary of state defined education. You make an interesting point about curricula, the problem of course is that truly public education will already do as you suggest. Independent, free and faith schools I cannot speak for. I would certainly support the abolition of all faith schools, the emphasis on all.
All you've done is drag politics from thousands of miles away, directly in to a discussion about someone getting murdered. You've done exactly what you accuse Trump of: politicising a horrible incident. Sadly it all feels familiar too.
Utter bollocks, Lucky. My point, in the earlier hours (well minutes really) of this thread, was simply to try and caution against jumping to conclusions. FWIW I was asking myself why this terrorist only shot at policemen and not other citizens in such a public place. It felt "different" to Berlin and Nice, just as the Dortmund attack. Why not just wait at least a few hours to see what emerges? But oh no, from the comfort of their keyboards some people on this thread had it all nailed. And then along comes the POTUS, saying he has "just walked in and seen this" and issues his tweets. Issue politicised. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest I further politicised it. I was reacting to what a politician said, FFS.
I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not.
France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State.
If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
1) saying he was right all along
2) point people back to his own agenda.
What's worse is Trump always goes down the whole 'Oh its very Bad, very very bad' 'a terrible thing, a really terrible thing' - his idea of getting a 'trump message' across is to quote something, and then repeat it in a slightly different order for maximum trump effect.
The guy is a complete and utter knob and will systematically destroy many government relationships around the world, but not before his own.
And that ladies and gents, is my Saturday morning political rant. Apologies.
When you say you wanted to highlight the "amount of terrorist attacks", do you mean that you think there is currently a high number? Or a low number? Are you making the point that the number of terrorist attacks is increasing or decreasing?
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
Maybe it's a good thing that we are all wary and vigilant. But maybe we are being encouraged to be scared of terrorists nowadays because it feeds into the government's objectives and we weren't in the 90s because it didn't. Who knows?
I think most people probably did
I feel wary these days, even going into my local relatively small cities of Limoges and Brive.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
Regarding your last quote. I had no way of knowing, but "the Belgian" really proved my point. On Thursday I simply did not find a BBC report of a second individual being involved despite another poster quoting the BBC as his source, followed by a rather perjorative remark about Brussels. We now learn that the Belgian referred to handed himself in to police. I think we can all agree that real ISIS trained people don't do that. In turn when ISIS claimed responsibility they referred to a Belgian. They also claimed responsibility for the Dortmund attack. We all ought to know by now that this is what terrorist organisations do, it is part of the propaganda game. All I was arguing for was a bit of time for the facts to emerge.
Tell me, (and absolutely not to pick an argument) what was your initial conclusion about the Dortmund attack?
I simply posted quotes to show that Trump, the lunatic, was not alone in immediately identifying the incident as a terrorist attack.
As an aside, it seems to me that these days the words terrorist and hero are bandied about far more freely and on a wider spectrum than in the past.
I said generally, and I referred to the IRA and ETA to answer that point is that unfair? I think not.