Berlin terrorist suspect caught-dead update

[imported_tajmahal]

Is the word monster used selectively to describe only a certain segment of humanity?

Because there are far bigger fish in the world that that word can be used for. Both presently and in history.

But your looking at the situation from a narrow racial/religious lenses and so are majority of people. No wonder everyone hates everyone.

It ain't tough, it means monsters. I don't give a rats ass if we are hated, just don't fsk with us.

 

[raildogg]

It is usually when a Muslim does it. Terrorism is intentional infliction of damage to civilian targets for political purpose. Muslim terrorists tend to be mentally sound, often middle class and comfortable. Most of the crazy shooters as of late like the sandy Hook kid are marginal people. Most shooters like Adam Lanza are actual male virgins, while most Muslim terrorists are men with normal romantic lives.

So basically, the increased mental facility of most Muslim terrorists means that the evil that they do is worse because it indicates choosing evil.

If we are to believe the media, this latest "terrorist" was a lifelong criminal. Not sure if that is mentally sound or not.

What you are saying is that because most of the Muslim bad guys are supposedly sound people mentally, they are evil; whereas, people who are not sound mentally are not. I don't know. It just sounds like terrorism just means Muslim.

What about governments? Can they ever be considered terrorists or does another label have to be applied to them after they mass murder innocent people on lies or whatever other reason? What about politicians? What about militaries?

We have situations where these supposed terrorists kill a few people (supposedly) but militaries kill millions.

Yet, we humans are far more scared of the "terrorists."

The media has won. It has done its job at scared you and me. The politicians have won.They have done their jobs at scaring you and me.

 

[raildogg]

It ain't tough, it means monsters. I don't give a rats ass if we are hated, just don't fsk with us.

Is there any group of people the Western world hasn't messed with and committed mass violence against in the past 700 years?

Oh wait, you probably don't care about this part as well.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Is there any group of people the Western world hasn't messed with and committed mass violence against in the past 700 years?

Ask someone that cares.

 

[raildogg]

Doesn't matter if you care or not. The reality doesn't change.

 

[desura]

If we are to believe the media, this latest "terrorist" was a lifelong criminal. Not sure if that is mentally sound or not.

What you are saying is that because most of the Muslim bad guys are supposedly sound people mentally, they are evil; whereas, people who are not sound mentally are not. I don't know. It just sounds like terrorism just means Muslim.

What about governments? Can they ever be considered terrorists or does another label have to be applied to them after they mass murder innocent people on lies or whatever other reason? What about politicians? What about militaries?

We have situations where these supposed terrorists kill a few people (supposedly) but militaries kill millions.

Yet, we humans are far more scared of the "terrorists."

The media has won. It has done its job at scared you and me. The politicians have won.They have done their jobs at scaring you and me.

In Europe they are more marginal than in the United States.

It is hard to remember, but terrorism isn't normal. Like, the way it is waged by Muslims really is different and more extreme than other groups. Why hasn't a Chinese person gone over to Japan and started killing random Japanese? He could blend in rather easily, and it is so crowded in Japan he could easily take down dozens. The Chinese have the Nanking massacre to be angry about. Probably religion is the answer.

Governments tend to at least have plausible deniability. Yes, innocents die in collateral damage, but governments never go out saying, "we killed all of these innocent people for our nation" and that is basically what Muslim terrorists do.

 

[MrSquished]

On the contrary. That is the EXACT policy we need.

Many many immigrants that came to this country worked hard and helped make it greater than it was before them. That doesn't mean let everyone in but it certainly doesn't mean be like Japan.

If you want to live in a lily white country, which I suspect is your desire, is to go move to Scandinavia. Except they are Socialist. So deal with that free healthcare and shit.

 

[Jaskalas]

I have a question for everyone here:

What makes a terrorist?

Is it only when a Muslim does something? I'm asking because for the last few years, it's only when a Muslim does something bad that the term terrorist is used. I guess from now on, when we use that term, we should be clear that it only applies to a Muslim doing it.

In this case he was a foreign individual acting as an agent of ISIS.
That he was foreign only serves as a backdrop for his identity and thus motivation. Anyone can pickup and identify with such a group but...
In terms of probability it's going to be a fairly specific subset of individuals with specific backgrounds.

We do not react badly to his ethnicity. We react badly to the ideas in his head that drive him to kill "us".

 

[raildogg]

In Europe they are more marginal than in the United States.

It is hard to remember, but terrorism isn't normal. Like, the way it is waged by Muslims really is different and more extreme than other groups. Why hasn't a Chinese person gone over to Japan and started killing random Japanese? He could blend in rather easily, and it is so crowded in Japan he could easily take down dozens. The Chinese have the Nanking massacre to be angry about. Probably religion is the answer.

Governments tend to at least have plausible deniability. Yes, innocents die in collateral damage, but governments never go out saying, "we killed all of these innocent people for our nation" and that is basically what Muslim terrorists do.

The Chinese didn't take Xinjiang, Tibet and other places in peaceful ways - quite the opposite. Their people don't have to do the violence. The government does it on a massive scale.

Of course the governments don't say that. Why would they? They are never truthful and never will be.

So, if they simply say "collateral damage," why does it let them off the hook whereas a Muslim is not? Is it the way they portray the event that we should give them the benefit of the doubt?

I mean, the governments can throw billions of dollars at propaganda if they wished but it doesn't change the fact that they are responsible for the massive destruction on this planet.

In historical context, these supposed Muslim bad guy terrorists are a tiny blip. (This never justifies any violence by anyone but we should not zero in on certain people while leaving others alone. That's called hypocrisy.)

Also, some of the stories the media has been telling us about these supposed events and the "terrorists" committing them are kind of strange but that's another topic for another day.

 

[MrSquished]

In Europe they are more marginal than in the United States.

It is hard to remember, but terrorism isn't normal. Like, the way it is waged by Muslims really is different and more extreme than other groups. Why hasn't a Chinese person gone over to Japan and started killing random Japanese? He could blend in rather easily, and it is so crowded in Japan he could easily take down dozens. The Chinese have the Nanking massacre to be angry about. Probably religion is the answer.

Governments tend to at least have plausible deniability. Yes, innocents die in collateral damage, but governments never go out saying, "we killed all of these innocent people for our nation" and that is basically what Muslim terrorists do.

So you are telling me that state-run terror that terrorizes, tortures and murders entire populations in one fell swoop, some of which we have supported, among other powerful nations on the planet, is somehow better than Muslim terrorists? For whatever fucking wacko reason you are putting forth?

Makes no sense. At the very least you are condemning Muslim terrorists for being honest and giving state-run terror a pass of some sort because they hide behind propaganda and other nice sounding rhetoric.

I think they all suck the same, I excuse nothing because governments may not come out and say it directly and hide it behind propaganda and hide it behind via other machinations.

 

[bshole]

So this guy ran away to save his life only to be killed by the Italian police? Something seems odd about it. Why would this guy be running away to save his life only to basically die at the hands of the authorities? It seems like in many of these supposed terrorist attacks, this is usually the one of the main conclusions.

Many questions surrounding this supposed attack. But hey, relax world, they caught the "bad guy."

Also, it is somewhat strange how they keep finding IDs these so-called Muslim radicals leave behind. What a bunch of sloppy terrorists.

Not every news event is a "conspiracy". If you have objective hard evidence of a conspiracy, provide it.

 

[raildogg]

Not every news event is a "conspiracy". If you have objective hard evidence of a conspiracy, provide it.

That word was not used in my post. I simply asked some questions.

Here is a "sickening" (not really) video of supposed attack:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/first-sickening-footage-moment-lorry-9503690

^^This is a clickbait type of website so click and browse with caution.

Around :08 you see what appears to be the truck sort of just rolling in to the market. Then suddenly, people start running from around that area but it is totally unclear.
There are two separate events recorded on the same video and they both are not totally clear.

If you look at some of the photos, the damage to the windshield looks bizarre. I mean, he must not have driven far after all that damage. Just look at it: all sorts of stuff supposedly entered through that windshield.

 

[bshole]

That word was not used in my post. I simply asked some questions.

Here is a "sickening" (not really) video of supposed attack:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/first-sickening-footage-moment-lorry-9503690

^^This is a clickbait type of website so click and browse with caution.

Around :08 you see what appears to be the truck sort of just rolling in to the market. Then suddenly, people start running from around that area but it is totally unclear.
There are two separate events recorded on the same video and they both are not totally clear.

If you look at some of the photos, the damage to the windshield looks bizarre. I mean, he must not have driven far after all that damage. Just look at it: all sorts of stuff supposedly entered through that windshield.

I sometimes watch the aftermath of one of these events but I always feel like a POS when I do. For whatever reason I feel guilty and dirty when I do. I don't need to see a truck running down people to know more about this particular event. It really is a horrible story. This will probably ruin Christmas for the families of the victims for the rest of their lives.

 

[desura]

So you are telling me that state-run terror that terrorizes, tortures and murders entire populations in one fell swoop, some of which we have supported, among other powerful nations on the planet, is somehow better than Muslim terrorists? For whatever fucking wacko reason you are putting forth?

Makes no sense. At the very least you are condemning Muslim terrorists for being honest and giving state-run terror a pass of some sort because they hide behind propaganda and other nice sounding rhetoric.

I think they all suck the same, I excuse nothing because governments may not come out and say it directly and hide it behind propaganda and hide it behind via other machinations.

No, I think Muslim terrorism is truly worse than anything else out there.

Words matter. Intent matters. That is why there is first degree, second degree, third degree murder. And the thing about intent is that someone who puts his mind to it can inflict significant harm, while accidents are well...accidental and unintentional. And limited, because they are accidental.

Muslim people already have states. We tend to have relations with those states. Because some of them reject those states for whatever reasons and decide to attack us doesn't make them "honest" or whatever. They are utterly despicable. The problem with the Left is that they view Muslims as kind of noble savages, who are "other" and so aren't fully culpable.

 

[purbeast0]

That word was not used in my post. I simply asked some questions.

Here is a "sickening" (not really) video of supposed attack:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/first-sickening-footage-moment-lorry-9503690

^^This is a clickbait type of website so click and browse with caution.

Around :08 you see what appears to be the truck sort of just rolling in to the market. Then suddenly, people start running from around that area but it is totally unclear.
There are two separate events recorded on the same video and they both are not totally clear.

If you look at some of the photos, the damage to the windshield looks bizarre. I mean, he must not have driven far after all that damage. Just look at it: all sorts of stuff supposedly entered through that windshield.

Holy shit that truck was going really fast.

 

[chucky2]

This is all very uninteresting. Write more about the black genocide you were alluding to earlier.

LOL, poor "agent". Hey, warmer temps this weekend, eh? You know what that likely means haha...

 

[MrSquished]

No, I think Muslim terrorism is truly worse than anything else out there.

Words matter. Intent matters. That is why there is first degree, second degree, third degree murder. And the thing about intent is that someone who puts his mind to it can inflict significant harm, while accidents are well...accidental and unintentional. And limited, because they are accidental.

Muslim people already have states. We tend to have relations with those states. Because some of them reject those states for whatever reasons and decide to attack us doesn't make them "honest" or whatever. They are utterly despicable. The problem with the Left is that they view Muslims as kind of noble savages, who are "other" and so aren't fully culpable.

Bullshit. Nobody views anybody as noble savages. You are just hell bent on applying different rules to the same actions to suit your worldview. You think the murders, torturing and overall suppression of human rights OF ENTIRE NATIONS FOR YEARS AT A TIME under dictators we supported like Pinochet, the Shah and Hussein, for example, are more ok than the same actions by Muslim terrorists today because they don't hide behind government propaganda basically. But wait.

That's just a load of horseshit.

There is one main difference between the two. The dictators I mentioned and others like them terrorized their own nations internally. Modern extremist Islamic terrorists today don't have true states for the most part, but while they terrorize those under their control as well, like ISIS, they also target Westerners. They all killed, they all tortured, they all suppressed rights. But that's the only difference.

By using the logic of deduction, extremist Islamic terrorists are worse than other despots anywhere else in the non-Western world because now they are targeting Westerners. Western lives matter. The lives of millions under the control of Latino dictators or Middle Eastern dictators don't matter as much.

Personally I think they all matter, and while I prioritize the lives of my countrymen more than most, I don't rate the version of murder, terror, torture and oppression by where on the globe the victims live. It's all the same.

What matters is prioritizing our response to where we focus resources to deal with any of those type of forces. If the choice is to protect a life in another country versus protecting one here, I would like our resources to focus at home. But at the same time, the transgressions are the same by definition.

 

[agent00f]

LOL, poor "agent". Hey, warmer temps this weekend, eh? You know what that likely means haha...

Oh, do elaborate as much as possible to let it be known what american conservatism is about.

 

[desura]

Bullshit. Nobody views anybody as noble savages. You are just hell bent on applying different rules to the same actions to suit your worldview. You think the murders, torturing and overall suppression of human rights OF ENTIRE NATIONS FOR YEARS AT A TIME under dictators we supported like Pinochet, the Shah and Hussein, for example, are more ok than the same actions by Muslim terrorists today because they don't hide behind government propaganda basically. But wait.

That's just a load of horseshit.

There is one main difference between the two. The dictators I mentioned and others like them terrorized their own nations internally. Modern extremist Islamic terrorists today don't have true states for the most part, but while they terrorize those under their control as well, like ISIS, they also target Westerners. They all killed, they all tortured, they all suppressed rights. But that's the only difference.

By using the logic of deduction, extremist Islamic terrorists are worse than other despots anywhere else in the non-Western world because now they are targeting Westerners. Western lives matter. The lives of millions under the control of Latino dictators or Middle Eastern dictators don't matter as much.

Personally I think they all matter, and while I prioritize the lives of my countrymen more than most, I don't rate the version of murder, terror, torture and oppression by where on the globe the victims live. It's all the same.

What matters is prioritizing our response to where we focus resources to deal with any of those type of forces. If the choice is to protect a life in another country versus protecting one here, I would like our resources to focus at home. But at the same time, the transgressions are the same by definition.

Huh? Get off your high horse. Never said anything like that at all.

I have no idea how you somehow linked a statement about the Chinese not being terrorists despite ample grievance to support of these various dictators. But to that point, Chile today is doing rather well compared to Venezuela, and might I add, you don't see individual Chileans murdering random people in New York because they are angry about what happened with Pinochet.

Is the USA hypocritical at times by working with the world as it is rather than this mythical perfect democracy that you think would exist otherwise? Sure. I also think that Iraq has shown that democracy does not occur spontaneously. It is path-dependent, probably to do with the specific history of Western societies. Iraq has also shown the importance of order, the absence of which results in far worse outcomes than what existed before. And so to that end, the behavior of various dictators are decisions made by themselves. They are fully functional human beings and can take responsibility themselves even though they are non-Western. And their repression of their societies likely was done out of insecurity and real perceived threat to their own survival, and their society's stability absent which more would suffer in the breakdown of order. They tend to have their own domestic supporters and are organic products of their societies.

Islamic terrorists are acting on religious ideals. They seek to destroy established order to create a society based on sharia and other medieval historical fantasy. Why don't Chinese go out and attack random Japanese? Because the Chinese lack this crazy ideal that would tie it all together. Why do Muslims go out and attack random people? Because they do possess religio-nationalist fanaticism, path dependent on the peculiar history of Islam. Why did say, the Shah of Iran repress certain groups? Because ultimately he feared for the safety of his supporters and society. Islamic terror groups by going on these suicide missions show that they don't have anything they're trying to protect, only something they want to destroy.

 

[agent00f]

Huh? Get off your high horse. Never said anything like that at all.

I have no idea how you somehow linked a statement about the Chinese not being terrorists despite ample grievance to support of these various dictators. But to that point, Chile today is doing rather well compared to Venezuela, and might I add, you don't see individual Chileans murdering random people in New York because they are angry about what happened with Pinochet.

Is the USA hypocritical at times by working with the world as it is rather than this mythical perfect democracy that you think would exist otherwise? Sure. I also think that Iraq has shown that democracy does not occur spontaneously. It is path-dependent, probably to do with the specific history of Western societies. Iraq has also shown the importance of order, the absence of which results in far worse outcomes than what existed before. And so to that end, the behavior of various dictators are decisions made by themselves. They are fully functional human beings and can take responsibility themselves even though they are non-Western. And their repression of their societies likely was done out of insecurity and real perceived threat to their own survival, and their society's stability absent which more would suffer in the breakdown of order. They tend to have their own domestic supporters and are organic products of their societies.

Islamic terrorists are acting on religious ideals. They seek to destroy established order to create a society based on sharia and other medieval historical fantasy. Why don't Chinese go out and attack random Japanese? Because the Chinese lack this crazy ideal that would tie it all together. Why do Muslims go out and attack random people? Because they do possess religio-nationalist fanaticism, path dependent on the peculiar history of Islam. Why did say, the Shah of Iran repress certain groups? Because ultimately he feared for the safety of his supporters and society. Islamic terror groups by going on these suicide missions show that they don't have anything they're trying to protect, only something they want to destroy.

Can you do the same analysis on christianity and why the US & the west went around killing so many more brownies and even quite a few of themselves? The numbers seem pretty lopsided in the "good guys'" favor.

 

[Perknose]

I. Why hasn't a Chinese person gone over to Japan and started killing random Japanese? He could blend in rather easily...

Holy shite, that's an incredibly ignorant assumption on your part. Why, because to YOU, they're all yellow "others?" ANY Japanese person could instantly identify a Chinese person as a foreigner, and vice versa, hands down, all day, every day. Where is the effing colbert icon when you need it?

The Chinese have the Nanking massacre to be angry about. Probably religion is the answer.

Uh, no, not even close. Sweet Jeebus, go read a book or two before opining on things about which you are so laughably ignorant.

 

[desura]

The Chinese didn't take Xinjiang, Tibet and other places in peaceful ways - quite the opposite. Their people don't have to do the violence. The government does it on a massive scale.

Of course the governments don't say that. Why would they? They are never truthful and never will be.

So, if they simply say "collateral damage," why does it let them off the hook whereas a Muslim is not? Is it the way they portray the event that we should give them the benefit of the doubt?

I mean, the governments can throw billions of dollars at propaganda if they wished but it doesn't change the fact that they are responsible for the massive destruction on this planet.

In historical context, these supposed Muslim bad guy terrorists are a tiny blip. (This never justifies any violence by anyone but we should not zero in on certain people while leaving others alone. That's called hypocrisy.)

Also, some of the stories the media has been telling us about these supposed events and the "terrorists" committing them are kind of strange but that's another topic for another day.

This is all shades of gray. As I said, a Muslim will go and say, effectively, "I killed these innocent people in a shopping center for the glory of the Prophet" while the Chinese government will announce the arrest of dozens of insurgents in which likely several are deaths. The message from the Chinese government is that it is restoring order--and it is very likely that the western regions are better off under Chinese rule than they would be otherwise, and there is sound geopolitical reason for the Chinese to hold that territory in order ultimately to protect their cities.

When Muslims kill random people in shopping centers, they're likely doing so after absorbing outrage about what is happening in Syria or Myanmar or Palestine. They are lashing out emotionally and violently at the infidel. Their goal simply is to maximize casualties.

Now, the Chinese government if it wanted to could maximize casualties in certain troublesome regions. Of course it does not. And it will not go out and explicitly say, "we killed 50 uyhurs today in retribution" because it would be roundly condemned and shamed for such a statement, and its people would find it horrifying as well. Muslim peoples, not so much.

 

[MrSquished]

Huh? Get off your high horse. Never said anything like that at all.

I have no idea how you somehow linked a statement about the Chinese not being terrorists despite ample grievance to support of these various dictators. But to that point, Chile today is doing rather well compared to Venezuela, and might I add, you don't see individual Chileans murdering random people in New York because they are angry about what happened with Pinochet.

Is the USA hypocritical at times by working with the world as it is rather than this mythical perfect democracy that you think would exist otherwise? Sure. I also think that Iraq has shown that democracy does not occur spontaneously. It is path-dependent, probably to do with the specific history of Western societies. Iraq has also shown the importance of order, the absence of which results in far worse outcomes than what existed before. And so to that end, the behavior of various dictators are decisions made by themselves. They are fully functional human beings and can take responsibility themselves even though they are non-Western. And their repression of their societies likely was done out of insecurity and real perceived threat to their own survival, and their society's stability absent which more would suffer in the breakdown of order. They tend to have their own domestic supporters and are organic products of their societies.

Islamic terrorists are acting on religious ideals. They seek to destroy established order to create a society based on sharia and other medieval historical fantasy. Why don't Chinese go out and attack random Japanese? Because the Chinese lack this crazy ideal that would tie it all together. Why do Muslims go out and attack random people? Because they do possess religio-nationalist fanaticism, path dependent on the peculiar history of Islam. Why did say, the Shah of Iran repress certain groups? Because ultimately he feared for the safety of his supporters and society. Islamic terror groups by going on these suicide missions show that they don't have anything they're trying to protect, only something they want to destroy.

You are essentially re-hashing the same talking points. Why didn't the Chinese head to Japan to attack random Japanese? Why don't the Chileans venture our into Western Culture and kill some 'Muricans. You proved my exact point, that all these despotic regimes killed and tortured and oppressed millions of people because they weren't going outside of their nations to do so very much, it's a better kind of terror. Vs Muslims who go outside their quasi-states and kill other people, primarily Westerners. So again, that's where you draw the line.

Maim, kill, torture, oppress your entire nation and that's bad, but it's not as bad as anyone who goes outside there 'state' lines (I use that loosely as modern extremist Islamists group don't really have a state) is far far worse.

The only difference, again, is going outside the box to attack 1st world countries' citizens vs keeping it in house. I stand by my original point.

 

[desura]

You are essentially re-hashing the same talking points. Why didn't the Chinese head to Japan to attack random Japanese? Why don't the Chileans venture our into Western Culture and kill some 'Muricans. You proved my exact point, that all these despotic regimes killed and tortured and oppressed millions of people because they weren't going outside of their nations to do so very much, it's a better kind of terror. Vs Muslims who go outside their quasi-states and kill other people, primarily Westerners. So again, that's where you draw the line.

Maim, kill, torture, oppress your entire nation and that's bad, but it's not as bad as anyone who goes outside there 'state' lines (I use that loosely as modern extremist Islamists group don't really have a state) is far far worse.

The only difference, again, is going outside the box to attack 1st world countries' citizens vs keeping it in house. I stand by my original point.

There is sovereignty. Look it up. The logical conclusion of this universalism you're expousing is nation-building across the world.

 

[norseamd]

In Europe they are more marginal than in the United States.

It is hard to remember, but terrorism isn't normal. Like, the way it is waged by Muslims really is different and more extreme than other groups. Why hasn't a Chinese person gone over to Japan and started killing random Japanese? He could blend in rather easily, and it is so crowded in Japan he could easily take down dozens. The Chinese have the Nanking massacre to be angry about. Probably religion is the answer.

Governments tend to at least have plausible deniability. Yes, innocents die in collateral damage, but governments never go out saying, "we killed all of these innocent people for our nation" and that is basically what Muslim terrorists do.

Christ you are a dumbass.

Terrorism has been around far longer than before the current West-Muslim conflict. Muslims dont do terrorism any different than other people. They are only doing it more right now because they are stuck in an asymmetrical conflict, where they cant stand up to other people and fight them conventionally.