I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
You make good points Prague. What I would throw out there, at the risk of stating the obvious, is that part of why this is so shocking is because it's a gun crime. I put this forth because my opposite was quite underwhelmed yesterday. I am so used to gun crime being American that this sort of thing just no longer effects me. My mind seemingly has a "another shooting incident" coping mechanism that takes over when news like this breaks. It's not that I feel nothing for the victims or those who are terrorized, but it is not, for me, anyway any sort of existential crisis that prompts any larger thought. It's just a thing that happens, like weather. Last night when reading more I had to sort of readjust myself and remember "this is almost unheard of in that part of the world."
I fear that, for Europe, these kinds of things may become the norm. Just as for the US Columbine was an epochal moment that kicked off a rash of other school shooting, so I fear it may be the case for western Europe.
I wish I had something more uplifting to end on. Perhaps the fact that after Columbine there were, and have been various "copy cat" incidents, or maybe saying incidents of similar nature is better, but that it died down and if there is one place America is *relatively* good at controlling gun access it's in schools. For now anyway.
I think Stu is right.....unfortunately I think its only a matter of time before far right nutters start retaliating in similar ways to what radical Muslims do and then it will be innocent Muslims in western Europe who will suffer the brunt of it. Dark times ahead.
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
24 hours earlier there was also a murderous attack in Prague's best shopping centre, in the Tesco there. I arrived there a couple of hours later, still unaware. Yet none of you know about. The perpetrator, a woman, is in police custody. She knifed an apparently random victim, another woman, who tragically died, despite the paramedics getting to her in 3 minutes.
It turns out the perpetrator was released from a mental hospital only that day. Two years ago it was similar story when a gunman went on the rampage in a cafe in a sleepy Czech town. Looks like the Munich attack is much like these two, yet the nature of modern media is such that the whole world knows, and Obama offers condolences,and it is lumped together with the Wurzburg attack.
Not having a go at anyone, just pondering the role of modern media in shaping our view of events.
And also that this thread is only 2 pages long. I don't mean that in a dismissive way, more that this has become the norm. This incident 2/3 years ago and I believe this thread may have ran into 8/9 pages by now. Unfortunately it's another tragedy that has come along in a recent glut. All equally heartbreaking, all equally as pertinent as an attack on free society, but hasn't elicited as much response as you might think.
Shocking and sad
Spot on, it's amazing how desensitized we become to things. We see the same things regularly and there is a decay to the effect that it has on us.
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
I'd go as far as to argue that a far-right backlash to a perceived threat of Islamist violence still has the same root cause: there's a consistent threat of violence to our societies being carried out under the name of Islam, and it's making people angry.
The unfortunate thing is, it will be the moderate majority of Muslims who are targeted - just like they're often tarred with the same brush after a real Islamist attack. This increases the likelihood of more being radicalised, and the disgusting circle simply continuing.
Whoever did this attack, the results are largely the same.
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
I'd go as far as to argue that a far-right backlash to a perceived threat of Islamist violence still has the same root cause: there's a consistent threat of violence to our societies being carried out under the name of Islam, and it's making people angry.
The unfortunate thing is, it will be the moderate majority of Muslims who are targeted - just like they're often tarred with the same brush after a real Islamist attack. This increases the likelihood of more being radicalised, and the disgusting circle simply continuing.
Whoever did this attack, the results are largely the same.
That paragraph is perfect. 100%
I would also say that fundamentalist Islam and far right loonies would probably get along pretty well if they sat down together, they have an awful lot in common...
As I said in a previous post, we could end up with 2 sides fighting each other through killing innocent people, and never actually directly landing hits on each other, just each carrying out their atrocities. Fundamentalist muslims on innocent people, and far right wingers on innocent Muslims.
And again as I said on this first page (I got 1 Lol, from someone who clearly has no intellect) I fear that soon the bait that is constantly being dangled in front of these people, will eventually be bit at, and then we will have real problems on our hands.
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
A very good paragraph, and important to remember, but also worth noting that traffic accidents and random shootings have killed far more in the States than Islamic terrorism. It's certainly a threat and a concern but because their attacks are statements, and because they come from "The Other," I think sometimes that type of terrorism is given more weight than perhaps it should.
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
A very good paragraph, and important to remember, but also worth noting that traffic accidents and random shootings have killed far more in the States than Islamic terrorism. It's certainly a threat and a concern but because their attacks are statements, and because they come from "The Other," I think sometimes that type of terrorism is given more weight than perhaps it should.
Absolutely. I am sure there are many clever stats for shark attacks, some abstract illness, falling coconuts and lightning etc being more likely to kill you than a terrorist but I think it's the nature of the killing.
Some methods of death are "passive" ie very difficult to avoid, whereas some are "loud" in terms of the way they are carried out.
To be fair if I lived in America I would be just as scared of white kids shooting up schools, or someone shooting me on the street.
Press Conference was held by Polizei München half an hour ago. It cleared up much of the confusion, personally I stopped trying to keep up tonight as there was so many claims and retractions. Ultimately the police have now confirmed that:
- One incident, other reports were erroneous and closures precautionary. - Lone Gunman, other suspects were arrested but found to be innocent. - Body was found some distance from the scene, self-inflicted bullet wound to the head - Subsequently identified as an Iranian-German - "Unknown Motive" (...)
The nationality suggests it wasn't right-wing related, as do reports from a witness (who identified herself as a very upset Muslim, so with little to gain by lying) that the attacker shouted "Allah Ackbar". It is still far too early to claim it was ISIS, and ISIS aren't known for being quick to claim reponsibility; it took them over 30 hours with the Nice attack, and around 10 for the Würzburg attack.
The attacker being Iranian would suggest he's Shia, so unlikely to engage with ISIS - although there was some Sunni migration during the revolution. The other peculiarity is the fact he committed suicide; he didn't use his suicide as a weapon, nor did he die in a confrontation. In Islam suicide is heavily forbidden.
There's also horrific claims that children were primarily targeted in the attack, although this isn't confirmed - and if it's true I doubt it ever will be confirmed with the current climate towards immigrants in Germany.
With all that said and done though... All in all, another very sad day. They're becoming far too common now.
Could he not have converted? Is it known if Shia go over to Sunni, or tother way round?
Who ever LOL this, I couldn't really give a fuck who you are, I was just askin the question. When you play Trivial Pursuit, do you tell everyone how easy their question is, while they're strugglin to answer it an all? Div
I didn't LOL it @i_b_b_o_r_g - but I can answer your question, and it's a pretty interesting one actually. Despite the friction and violence between the two groups, you can indeed change the way you practice Islam, and in essence, convert to the other group. It's not going to be a decision that's widely approved of by your peer group though.
Historically Iran was Sunni up until the sixteenth century, when there was a purge and a forced conversion to Shia beliefs. The man behind this decision, Ismail I, did so to counter the perceived threat of the Sunni Ottoman Empire; nowadays you could argue Iran is still a bastion for Shia Muslims except the threat would be Saudi Arabia. This is still a great demonstration of conversion on a huge scale.
More recently though, there are some interesting interviews online (Example 1 and Example 2) regarding people who have converted. An underlying theme seems to be that Sunni beliefs seem purer. Arguably someone who converts and finds themselves alienated by their peer group is going to be pretty vulnerable and lonely though.
This is all really relevant to the ISIS issue: one very important defining characteristic of the two groups is how they view the leadership of Islam. The Shia are essentially waiting for an Islamic leader who will return at the end of time. They believe that Mohammed appointed a ruler, and only that ruler is infallible and capable of providing the Muslim community with leadership.
Whilst the Sunni belief dictates that a leader can be anyone who dedicates themselves to Islam; as long as they live their life following Mohammed's example then they are fit to rule over the faith.
The fact that the Sunni belief system is OK with the idea of having a ruler of the Islamic world (or Caliph) is precisely what facilitates ISIS, and it's objectives of a modern Caliphate. So for a Shia Muslim, fighting for ISIS is an unthinkable act that goes beyond the sectarian aggression and really to the core of their belief..
I do understand that mate. However hopefully you see my point too. People on this thread , for understandable reasons , are still trying to fit the Munich attack to the Islamic terrorist threat. Last night, when I learnt it was 5 years anniversary of Brevik, I assumed it must be the extreme right.
Looking almost certain that neither was true, yet the whole world has speculated and reinforced prejudices and hates in the process.
Or people are just looking at things reasonably and making assumptions... I feel like some people would be happy to see a terrorist attack (eg Breivik) that wasn't perpetrated by a Muslim, just so they could rub it in everyone's faces and make them feel awful for not being "right on"
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
A very good paragraph, and important to remember, but also worth noting that traffic accidents and random shootings have killed far more in the States than Islamic terrorism. It's certainly a threat and a concern but because their attacks are statements, and because they come from "The Other," I think sometimes that type of terrorism is given more weight than perhaps it should.
To be fair if I lived in America I would be just as scared of white kids shooting up schools, or someone shooting me on the street.
Horrible to think that, even though this incident took place just two days ago, there have already been two, worrying events since. A machete murder in Reutlingen and an explosion in a restaurant in Ansbach.
- Confirmed as a deliberate explosion, using a dedicated device. - Attacker first attempted to gain entry to the music festival, but was denied access. - Device was packed with metal objects used in woodwork, suggesting it was a nail bomb. - One death, and that's thankfully the attacker. - Attacker has been identified as a failed Syrian asylum-seeker, granted permission to remain in Germany temporarily but known to police. - Multiple injured, 3 seriously.
The "gas explosion" in the Ansbach wine bar has now been confirmed as deliberate. The local mayor (Carda Seidel) has also been quoted as saying there was an "explosive device" used in the attack. Thankfully there was only one death, and that appears to have been the individual who was responsible. There are unfortunately 3 seriously injured though.
Officials are claiming that the individual is a Syrian national who failed to claim asylum around a year ago, he'd also tried to commit suicide twice previously. Despite being denied asylum he was allowed to stay in Germany "due to the situation in Syria". He was known to be wearing a backpack and had attempted to enter the music festival when security officers turned him away, he immediately went to the wine bar where the explosion then occurred. Ansbach holds a US Army garrison according to the Guardian.
The BBC have since removed the mention of his nationality and failed claim to asylum, I'm not entirely sure why as these facts have been confirmed. It's quite troubling though as this is very similar to the way they removed "Ali" from the Munich shooters name, before adding it once again after they were called out on it. This is precisely the kind of inconsistency that fuels the right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe there's a deliberate effort to hide facts from the public.
Unbelievable reporting by the BBC, completely missing the point that he was in fact the bomber - and in fact making it out as though he was the victim upon first glance:
Precisely the kind of utter nonsense that I mentioned in my previous post. This is the perfect fuel for the far-right to use, and already people are moaning all over Twitter as though it's some sort of conspiracy denying people the facts. Far from a conspiracy, it's just ridiculous wording.
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
If the Germans decide that their welcome was a mistake and elect politicians that reflect that viewpoint where will the refugees go? I'll be surprised if this experiment doesn't lead to an almighty game of pass the parcel with EU states trying desperately to discourage the unwanted heading their way.
Don't know the timeline for the BBC first headline but they are making it clear now.
" A failed Syrian asylum seeker has blown himself up and injured 12 other people with a backpack bomb near a festival in the south German town of Ansbach"
It's being reported that he was turned away from the music festival ? If it was because he had a backpack, then a shame they couldn't inform the police for a check. Saying that the security at the festival saved scores of live when you think how tightly packed people can be.
I don't want to hear that all these incidents are mentally ill people because that's just a cop-out for the real problem of assimilation with different cultures,skin colours, Religions and expectations flooding into Europe.
The Wedge between "Hawks and Doves" is going to increase in the coming days, without any centre ground. Yet again Europe is in Crisis with no way of stopping the whirlpool of Hate on all sides.
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
People were moaning at it from 5am though, according to Twitter. That's still a couple hours after the facts were known, surprisingly The Guardian appear to be the best outlet for this kind of stuff.
I agree there's no conspiracy, however it certainly fits in with the agenda that some try and push though. (i.e a massive media cover-up.)
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
Yet surely they should be finding out the true facts before posting articles.
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
Jimmy, it's an awful situation and we MUST do something about it - I imagine few people would disagree with that.
I also believe we, as a nation, need immigration.
However I do still believe Germany accepting - for a period - any refugee from Syria was a huge, huge mistake. Checks needs to be made, we need to know who we are allowing into our countries.
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
Yet surely they should be finding out the true facts before posting articles.
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
Had the BBC waited until all relevant pertinent facts were known, checked and confirmed before publishing, the story would have been conspicuously missing. What would the conspiracy theorists say then?
Is it true to say that a "Syrian migrant dies in German blast"? Yes, it appears that's exactly what did happen. Has the story developed and been clarified subsequently? Yes.
That's precisely why the BBC is such a good news medium, streets ahead of other news outlets which openly drive their own agendas.
Give me all the facts; and until they're available, give me as many as possible.
educational video, but unfortunately the minority that have carried out these attrocites in germany over the last week have spoilt it for the majority. if it was my girlfreind hacked to death in the street i would want every syrian refugee in the country chucked out.
This probably isn't the time for a discussion on immigration, but since it's already happening.
That video is great, on the surface. Yet it lets itself down with bits like "xenophobic rich cowards behind fences" and the threat of "more dead kids".
I was a bit suspicious when it got the very basics wrong: i.e our opposition to Mare Nostrum. Mare Nostrum was an Italian Government operation that ran for 12 months, there was no EU involvement and nothing for us to oppose. I suspect the creator meant to say Triton, the EU-led operation which took over. Yes, we did oppose it - but there was more to it than the simplistic view that video put forward about more people drowning meaning less people arriving; that's more emotive nonsense. When the Italians were conducting Mare Nostrum the people-traffickers took full advantage of it, and what was already an immensely dangerous journey for the immigrants was suddenly made worse: encouraging traffickers taking more risks was a concern voiced by more than the UK.
Next the video talks about the small percentage of immigrants in comparison to the population of the EU: that would be an excellent point were the immigrants distributed evenly throughout the EU. However the immigrants seem to have preference over where they wish to go, with smaller numbers in Eastern Europe. With this in mind, the percentages change drastically when you factor this in. It gets even worse when you look at it on a city-level.
Lastly, in an ideal world we could use the displacement figures from Syria to plan a coherent response to ensure the safety of everyone affected. Sadly this isn't an ideal world, and not all of those entering the EU originate from Syria or have legitimate claims to asylum. (Consider Sweden, who out of 150,000+ asylum applications rejected over 60,000+ - or Channel4's "FactCheck" which puts Syrian asylum seekers at around 20%) The fact there's a crisis in Syria has not prevented other crises and the usual flow of asylum seekers, so to use the displacement figures and claim that the EU could house everyone displaced by the conflict is very misleading.
I'm quite disappointed with that video, as the others have been excellent.
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
Yet surely they should be finding out the true facts before posting articles.
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
But the original story (this morning) was factually correct ?
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
Yet surely they should be finding out the true facts before posting articles.
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
Had the BBC waited until all relevant pertinent facts were known, checked and confirmed before publishing, the story would have been conspicuously missing. What would the conspiracy theorists say then?
Is it true to say that a "Syrian migrant dies in German blast"? Yes, it appears that's exactly what did happen. Has the story developed and been clarified subsequently? Yes.
That's precisely why the BBC is such a good news medium, streets ahead of other news outlets which openly drive their own agendas.
Give me all the facts; and until they're available, give me as many as possible.
I agree to an extent, but I'm not sure it quite excuses the underlying sentiment in the headline. Upon first reading it would appear that the Syrian migrant was the only victim in the explosion, not to mention it was timed after the Bavarian Interior Minister had pointed the finger towards a deliberate explosion where the only fatality was the attacker.
It's not difficult to think of an alternative that still confirms with what was known at the time. I'm no journalist, but consider this: "Syrian migrant dies in German blast" vs "One dead and multiple injured in German explosion".
To be fair less than an hour later they've corrected it. If you want 24 hour news you have to be prepared for it to be fast moving, there is no conspiracy.
Yet surely they should be finding out the true facts before posting articles.
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
Had the BBC waited until all relevant pertinent facts were known, checked and confirmed before publishing, the story would have been conspicuously missing. What would the conspiracy theorists say then?
Is it true to say that a "Syrian migrant dies in German blast"? Yes, it appears that's exactly what did happen. Has the story developed and been clarified subsequently? Yes.
That's precisely why the BBC is such a good news medium, streets ahead of other news outlets which openly drive their own agendas.
Give me all the facts; and until they're available, give me as many as possible.
I agree to an extent, but I'm not sure it quite excuses the underlying sentiment in the headline. Upon first reading it would appear that the Syrian migrant was the only victim in the explosion, not to mention it was timed after the Bavarian Interior Minister had pointed the finger towards a deliberate explosion where the only fatality was the attacker.
It's not difficult to think of an alternative that still confirms with what was known at the time. I'm no journalist, but consider this: "Syrian migrant dies in German blast" vs "One dead and multiple injured in German explosion".
Both those headlines are accurate. But the first one gives more detail, ie that it involved a Syrian migrant, in fewer words.
It's being reported that ISIS have taken responsibility.
- Attacker pledged alleigence to ISIS leader al-Baghdadi* on a video recovered from his phone. - ISIS News Agency "Amaq" have confirmed the operation was conducted by "a soldier of Islamic State"
*There was a very interesting point made by a correspondant for the New York Times who specialises in ISIS and Al Qaeda. Pledging alleigence directly to al-Baghdadi suggests a "deeper level of indoctrination" as it's the correct way of pledging alleigence - whereas a common mistake made is to pledge allegience to the state (the Caliphate) and not the leader (the Caliph). Pretty interesting insight in to the priorities of the ISIS leadership.
It's also worth highlighting that they waited for official acknowledgement from German sources before making their own announcement, and there have been incidents which they haven't automatically claimed. Which puts to rest the argument of ISIS automatically claiming every attack as their own.
Comments
I fear that, for Europe, these kinds of things may become the norm. Just as for the US Columbine was an epochal moment that kicked off a rash of other school shooting, so I fear it may be the case for western Europe.
I wish I had something more uplifting to end on. Perhaps the fact that after Columbine there were, and have been various "copy cat" incidents, or maybe saying incidents of similar nature is better, but that it died down and if there is one place America is *relatively* good at controlling gun access it's in schools. For now anyway.
Today, just like yesterday and the day before, radical Islam is the greatest terrorist threat in the Western world, that has not, and for the foreseeable future, will not change. The vast, vast VAST majority of Muslims are not a threat and are just as scared as the rest of us, but it doesn't make the point any less relevant.
The fact that this one was different changes nothing.
The unfortunate thing is, it will be the moderate majority of Muslims who are targeted - just like they're often tarred with the same brush after a real Islamist attack. This increases the likelihood of more being radicalised, and the disgusting circle simply continuing.
Whoever did this attack, the results are largely the same.
I would also say that fundamentalist Islam and far right loonies would probably get along pretty well if they sat down together, they have an awful lot in common...
As I said in a previous post, we could end up with 2 sides fighting each other through killing innocent people, and never actually directly landing hits on each other, just each carrying out their atrocities. Fundamentalist muslims on innocent people, and far right wingers on innocent Muslims.
And again as I said on this first page (I got 1 Lol, from someone who clearly has no intellect) I fear that soon the bait that is constantly being dangled in front of these people, will eventually be bit at, and then we will have real problems on our hands.
Some methods of death are "passive" ie very difficult to avoid, whereas some are "loud" in terms of the way they are carried out.
To be fair if I lived in America I would be just as scared of white kids shooting up schools, or someone shooting me on the street.
Historically Iran was Sunni up until the sixteenth century, when there was a purge and a forced conversion to Shia beliefs. The man behind this decision, Ismail I, did so to counter the perceived threat of the Sunni Ottoman Empire; nowadays you could argue Iran is still a bastion for Shia Muslims except the threat would be Saudi Arabia. This is still a great demonstration of conversion on a huge scale.
More recently though, there are some interesting interviews online (Example 1 and Example 2) regarding people who have converted. An underlying theme seems to be that Sunni beliefs seem purer. Arguably someone who converts and finds themselves alienated by their peer group is going to be pretty vulnerable and lonely though.
This is all really relevant to the ISIS issue: one very important defining characteristic of the two groups is how they view the leadership of Islam. The Shia are essentially waiting for an Islamic leader who will return at the end of time. They believe that Mohammed appointed a ruler, and only that ruler is infallible and capable of providing the Muslim community with leadership.
Whilst the Sunni belief dictates that a leader can be anyone who dedicates themselves to Islam; as long as they live their life following Mohammed's example then they are fit to rule over the faith.
The fact that the Sunni belief system is OK with the idea of having a ruler of the Islamic world (or Caliph) is precisely what facilitates ISIS, and it's objectives of a modern Caliphate. So for a Shia Muslim, fighting for ISIS is an unthinkable act that goes beyond the sectarian aggression and really to the core of their belief..
Sad times in Germany right now.
Merkel must be pretty worried about the next election.
- Attacker first attempted to gain entry to the music festival, but was denied access.
- Device was packed with metal objects used in woodwork, suggesting it was a nail bomb.
- One death, and that's thankfully the attacker.
- Attacker has been identified as a failed Syrian asylum-seeker, granted permission to remain in Germany temporarily but known to police.
- Multiple injured, 3 seriously.
The "gas explosion" in the Ansbach wine bar has now been confirmed as deliberate. The local mayor (Carda Seidel) has also been quoted as saying there was an "explosive device" used in the attack. Thankfully there was only one death, and that appears to have been the individual who was responsible. There are unfortunately 3 seriously injured though.
Officials are claiming that the individual is a Syrian national who failed to claim asylum around a year ago, he'd also tried to commit suicide twice previously. Despite being denied asylum he was allowed to stay in Germany "due to the situation in Syria". He was known to be wearing a backpack and had attempted to enter the music festival when security officers turned him away, he immediately went to the wine bar where the explosion then occurred. Ansbach holds a US Army garrison according to the Guardian.
The BBC have since removed the mention of his nationality and failed claim to asylum, I'm not entirely sure why as these facts have been confirmed. It's quite troubling though as this is very similar to the way they removed "Ali" from the Munich shooters name, before adding it once again after they were called out on it. This is precisely the kind of inconsistency that fuels the right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe there's a deliberate effort to hide facts from the public.
Precisely the kind of utter nonsense that I mentioned in my previous post. This is the perfect fuel for the far-right to use, and already people are moaning all over Twitter as though it's some sort of conspiracy denying people the facts. Far from a conspiracy, it's just ridiculous wording.
" A failed Syrian asylum seeker has blown himself up and injured 12 other people with a backpack bomb near a festival in the south German town of Ansbach"
It's being reported that he was turned away from the music festival ?
If it was because he had a backpack, then a shame they couldn't inform the police for a check. Saying that the security at the festival saved scores of live when you think how tightly packed people can be.
I don't want to hear that all these incidents are mentally ill people because
that's just a cop-out for the real problem of assimilation with different cultures,skin colours, Religions and expectations flooding into Europe.
The Wedge between "Hawks and Doves" is going to increase in the coming days, without any centre ground. Yet again Europe is in Crisis with no way of stopping the whirlpool of Hate on all sides.
Although must say the original title @LuckyReds put was a poor choice of words.
I agree there's no conspiracy, however it certainly fits in with the agenda that some try and push though. (i.e a massive media cover-up.)
Else the likes of the BBC / ITV have to accept they could get into legal trouble like when the latter claimed that a bunch of Charlton supporters beat up some old people on a train to Crystal Palace yet it turned out to be the other way round!!
I also believe we, as a nation, need immigration.
However I do still believe Germany accepting - for a period - any refugee from Syria was a huge, huge mistake. Checks needs to be made, we need to know who we are allowing into our countries.
Is it true to say that a "Syrian migrant dies in German blast"? Yes, it appears that's exactly what did happen. Has the story developed and been clarified subsequently? Yes.
That's precisely why the BBC is such a good news medium, streets ahead of other news outlets which openly drive their own agendas.
Give me all the facts; and until they're available, give me as many as possible.
That video is great, on the surface. Yet it lets itself down with bits like "xenophobic rich cowards behind fences" and the threat of "more dead kids".
I was a bit suspicious when it got the very basics wrong: i.e our opposition to Mare Nostrum. Mare Nostrum was an Italian Government operation that ran for 12 months, there was no EU involvement and nothing for us to oppose. I suspect the creator meant to say Triton, the EU-led operation which took over. Yes, we did oppose it - but there was more to it than the simplistic view that video put forward about more people drowning meaning less people arriving; that's more emotive nonsense. When the Italians were conducting Mare Nostrum the people-traffickers took full advantage of it, and what was already an immensely dangerous journey for the immigrants was suddenly made worse: encouraging traffickers taking more risks was a concern voiced by more than the UK.
Next the video talks about the small percentage of immigrants in comparison to the population of the EU: that would be an excellent point were the immigrants distributed evenly throughout the EU. However the immigrants seem to have preference over where they wish to go, with smaller numbers in Eastern Europe. With this in mind, the percentages change drastically when you factor this in. It gets even worse when you look at it on a city-level.
Lastly, in an ideal world we could use the displacement figures from Syria to plan a coherent response to ensure the safety of everyone affected. Sadly this isn't an ideal world, and not all of those entering the EU originate from Syria or have legitimate claims to asylum. (Consider Sweden, who out of 150,000+ asylum applications rejected over 60,000+ - or Channel4's "FactCheck" which puts Syrian asylum seekers at around 20%) The fact there's a crisis in Syria has not prevented other crises and the usual flow of asylum seekers, so to use the displacement figures and claim that the EU could house everyone displaced by the conflict is very misleading.
I'm quite disappointed with that video, as the others have been excellent.
It's not difficult to think of an alternative that still confirms with what was known at the time. I'm no journalist, but consider this: "Syrian migrant dies in German blast" vs "One dead and multiple injured in German explosion".
- Attacker pledged alleigence to ISIS leader al-Baghdadi* on a video recovered from his phone.
- ISIS News Agency "Amaq" have confirmed the operation was conducted by "a soldier of Islamic State"
*There was a very interesting point made by a correspondant for the New York Times who specialises in ISIS and Al Qaeda. Pledging alleigence directly to al-Baghdadi suggests a "deeper level of indoctrination" as it's the correct way of pledging alleigence - whereas a common mistake made is to pledge allegience to the state (the Caliphate) and not the leader (the Caliph). Pretty interesting insight in to the priorities of the ISIS leadership.
It's also worth highlighting that they waited for official acknowledgement from German sources before making their own announcement, and there have been incidents which they haven't automatically claimed. Which puts to rest the argument of ISIS automatically claiming every attack as their own.