Terrorist Attack in Manchester (Read MOD WARNING in OP Updated 24/05/2017))

kopite386

According to the latest update from the GMP, 7 people are now in custody
https://twitter.com/gmpolice/status/867496024574742528

buried

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I take your broad point but of course the upshot is what exactly are we supposed to do about it? We can't reasonably go regime changing, boycotting the worlds largest oil producer would be pissing in the wind and appealing to moral decency in a country that still executes apostates is....yeah. It's a **** hole, and sadly the best we can do is pretend they are our friend.

Sorry for rairing at you man, I don't mean it, That Saudi gang get me riled up, thats all, I'm sorry for flaming my post at you.

Irish Praetorian

buried wrote: »

Sorry for rairing at you man, I don't mean it, That Saudi gang get me riled up, thats all, I'm sorry for flaming my post at you.

I think rage and anger are far more understandable reactions to horror like this than indifference and acceptance, so don't worry about it

My name is URL

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I think rage and anger are far more understandable reactions to horror like this than indifference and acceptance, so don't worry about it

Coz there couldn't possibly be anything in between rage and indifference could there? :rolleyes:

Junkyard Tom

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

However I would submit in popular discourse it's more important to debunk the widely held platitude of 'its all our fault'

You'd be hard pushed to get anyone from the so-called mainstream/centre to even countenance that the West, or whoever else, has any responsibility whatsoever for the unmitigated mess in the Middle East despite the invasions, wars, proxy wars, support/cover weapons sales to the Saudis and so on.

the less well known position that it might be something to do with religious zealotry amongst other things

Less well known position? Pull the other one.

Hank Scorpio

Persephone kindness wrote: »

So there you go ..his family were anti Isis and anti Jihadi...his imam was anti Isis anti Jihadi and anti the Ansar al-Sharia militia. They actively preached this. He was chanting on the street. He was ill. He made an angry bitter choice to ignore his community .

Quoting this for shíts and giggles.

Perhaps he, and his family, needed more hugs?

Exeggcute

The Wall Street Journal has interviewed the bombers sister

She offered this explanation for her brothers actions

He wanted revenge according to his sister, who is quoted as saying that “he saw children—Muslim children—dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge."

AllForIt

Widdershins wrote: »

I believe religious ideology is the root cause, many Islamic academics and Muslim reformists believe it is the root cause, and the reason we're not all dead, apart from the fact that not all Muslims share the same outlook, is that those who do have the same outlook as the attackers, don't necessarily feel prepared to die for it (at least not yet).

The idea that if Islam is part of the problem that means all Muslims are problematic is a dangerous one. Maybe that's why people are so averse to scrutinising Islam-because they think it means criticisng Muslims themselves, and tarring them with the same brush.

I think the words Ideology and Radicalism and Radicalized are used far to much.

It suggests that one's mind has been taken over by some transcendent force and thus we should have some sympathy for the position they themselves have chosen to place themselves in.

I am sick and tired hearing in the media that a person has been radicalized. Yes a political movement has latched on to someone they feel sympathizes with their cause, but this could never happen unless the subject was intellectually veering in that direction in the first place. So in essence the student has enrolled in his desired course.

I get a sense that when an individual carries out these kinds of atrocities that some kind responsibility has been lifted of them because they are doing it because of a perceived ideology. As if it's much worse to murder someone for ones own gratification, but it's not so bad if it were done on the backdrop of engineering society to conform with their world view.

gitzy16v

My name is URL wrote: »

Coz there couldn't possibly be anything in between rage and indifference could there? :rolleyes:

where do you sit on the Rage<

---

>Indifference scale :rolleyes:

Nabber

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Purely is the wrong word but it's all too often that people like you and Blanch152 are in complete denial that causes have effects - denial of reality and an naive understanding of human nature.

Islam is still fighting a war with Christians, Hindus and Judaism

Christianity has left the religious wars behind, Islam and Judaism haven't, Hindus are not as fanatical.

Just look at the most recent Islam based terroir attack. Philippines, Two bomb blasts targeting Christians along a commercial district leaves fourteen dead 50 injured.

Both sides have bloody hands. We turn a blind eye to the Middle East,the middle probably turns a blind eye to the attacks in Europe.

GritBiscuit

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't think Islam and other religions are making good bedfellows abroad. The best way for countries of different religious majorities to coexist is for each to be secular.

Taking a positive view of how those countries coexist abroad has nothing to do with and doesn't explain away the accusations of Islamophobia and outright denial of any connection between terrorism and religion. It's an aversion to scrutiny and it's down to hypersensitivity for some reason. I don't think ''finger pointing'' is a reasonable description.

Getting rid of religions isn't an option, addressing the source of the radicalisation should be. We know it's stemming from the Saudi-funded mosques, and we know some Imams and other Muslims have spoken up about this.

You don't even need to look off this island to see countries struggling to make good bedfellows...that's hardly a distinction unique to Islam.

I'm not sure who is outright denying a connection between terrorism and religion? It would be madness to suggest that Islamic extremists aren't finding common ground in their joint ideologies in order to justify their attacks. That's not the same as saying the primary cause of terrorist attacks from Muslims is their religion tho.

I think finger-pointing is a fair description - fairer than knee-jerk at least given radicalisation and it's links to terror in the west is a relatively recent phenomena and Islam is not. I totally agree with addressing Saudi involvement but I have absolutely zero faith at any western leader doing such a thing. War and oil are trillion dollar industries - and time and again creating oil hungry tinder-boxes of mistrust and angry disillusionment take priority. That's where I'd be pointing fingers anyway.

BalcombeSt4

Beyondgone wrote: »

Define where I suddenly became "you" and "we" suddenly became "us" - became something better, wiser and more decent? Your post is virtue-signalling cobblers. I'm a pacifist non religious, lassie-faire person, but by your hand, I just became "You". Buy a mirror and have a look in it. Leave me out of your Student fantasies.

So you admit you don't care if little kids in Iraq, Syria, Palestine getting blown to bits by US & Israeli bombs then.

I'm against violence but not a 100% pacifist. But there is a fundamental principle, I believe people have the right to defend their country against invaders who are destroying & occupying it, people have the right to resist that. And people who don't support this very simple, elementary and uncomplicated question, to me are a moral card.

HenryHill

Presenter here is a p***k but the SAS man speaks sense.

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/867335527875436544

AllForIt

HenryHill wrote: »

Presenter here is a p***k but the SAS man speaks sense.

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/867335527875436544

I don't agree the presenter is a prick, all news reporters play devils advocate in interviews and it is ignorant of you to think than when a present puts a line of questioning to a interviewee that they are spouting their own point of view.

Having said that I totally agree with what the interviewee was saying. I said it twice before and I'll say it again, It should be an illegal offence to view, interact, subscribe to, publicly demonstrate, or promote anything whatsoever to do with radical Islamist views.

SkepticQuark

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't agree the presenter is a prick, all news reporters play devils advocate in interviews and it is ignorant of you to think than when a present puts a line of questioning to a interviewee that they are spouting their own point of view.

Having said that I totally agree with what the interviewee was saying. I said it twice before and I'll say it again, It should be an illegal offence to view, interact, subscribe to, publicly demonstrate, or promote anything whatsoever to do with radical Islamist views.

Banning viewing it seems a tad too 1984 for my tastes given you'd be locking up Sam Harris or other people who view these things to see the beliefs for themselves without any media or 3rd party altering it. Or will we make an exception for people who don't "look like" terrorists?

Hank Scorpio

BBC is far worse than Sky.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/866988283615641600

jackofalltrades

GritBiscuit wrote: »

And yet with over 1.5 billion adherents to Islam, if religious ideology was the primary root cause of terrorism wouldn't we all be dead by now?

Because most try to take the good out of it.
They want to get on with their lives and live peacefully.
But if you want to take it literally there's enough in the Quran and the Haddiths to justify all the violence you want.
That and Muhammad is considered a great example to follow and look what he did.

Most dangerous ideologies are safe enough because people will reject them.
It's the minority that don't that are the problem.
Just like guns, loads of people have them and yet we're still here.
I still wouldn't want one in the hands of a someone with views that are so strongly held they could entertain using one.

Also if it's safe people wouldn't fear for their life at drawing it's founder.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

It may be "a" cause, I'm not convinced it's "the" cause - radicalisation is a complex issue and finger-pointing at a specific religious ideology that has been around since the 7th century goes no further towards explaining the current and fairly recent, increase in Islamic extremism than pointing to ancient biblical verse explains away the Anti-balaka.

It's the cause for two reasons.

1) It creates people that are less integrated with the community around them.
Some of these people are then vulnerable to extreme behaviour due to this isolation.

2) There's enough violence in Islam to either radicalise someone or radicalise yourself.
It's an ideology that is steeped in violent expansion and confrontation with non-believers.

Murrisk

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Not sure how true this is but apparently Ariana Grande has offered to pay for funerals

I think this is a lovely gesture, if true. There's not much she can do for the victims but this is something concrete that she can offer them. Not to mention that some families genuinely might find it hard to afford.

wonderfullife

Beyondgone wrote: »

No, Islam is the problem. There's no point beating around the bush. If I refuse to acknowledge that my house is on fire, ... I'm a fool.

Correct you'd be a fool to refuse to acknowledge your house is on fire.

You'd equally be a fool if the police told you that the perpetrator who set your house on fire is an Italian fella and you then tell everyone that Italians are arsonists.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Islam most certainly is the problem. Being based on nonsense, anything goes for it. No Islam, no problem.

You vastly underestimate the capacity of the human race to be violent and evil.

Hitler wasn't invading Poland for the love of God.

No Islam, no religion, then just a whole different bunch of problems just as bad. If people aren't killing over religion then they're killing over land or skin colour or something else.

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If it's going to be the case that someone born, educated and living in the West is going to turn on their own society simply by virtue of their religion and a sense of shared community with people elsewhere in the world that they perceive as victims - well then there is a damn fine case to be made that such a religion has no place in a civilized society.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

Salman Abedi was a stoner, loved drinking, partying and getting up to no good. In short a regular enough fella.

You and others keep propagating this narrative that it's the religion of Islam to blame here. That, in your words, "By virtue of his religion he turned on his society".

Here's the reality:

He wasn't a religious person. He was a pot-head who loved getting high and going on the lash.

This trend has been repeated across Europe - young fellas going nowhere in life, not the faintest interest in religion whatsoever, and they suddenly decide to embrace it at the end.

I'm a Catholic in the strictest sense of the word, I was baptised and had my communion and confirmation.

The only time I'm in church is for a funeral. I don't pray.

I'm Catholic in name only.

If I suddenly have enough of being a loser in life and decide to go out tomorrow and kill a load of people based on a passage in Deuteronomy in the Christian Bible, is it Christianty and Catholicism to blame? Is it the fault of the bible for having those passages in them about killing others? I didn't live or practice the faith but hey I used it as an excuse so it must be Christianity's fault right?

It's too simplistic for the rabble to say "ISLAM! Ban it! Throw them in jail! Awful religion!".

The truth is we're seeing Islam being used as a prop by young men who have had enough of this world, enough of being anonymous in this world, enough of failure in getting a job, enough of failure in finding a girlfriend, enough of their sad existence.

Salman Abedi was no more a Muslim than I'm a Catholic.

He was no more a Muslim than Christopher Hitchens would be defined as a Christian for saying a prayer on his death-bed.

For centuries the Christian Bible was used as a prop for people to commit mass-murder. Now it's the turn of the Koran. In the future it'll be some other book.

The more people propagate the idea that Islam is an evil religion full of evil people, the more we will see a rise in far-right terrorism who will see themselves at war with them.

People are always going to be evil, regardless of faith.

Not all the faithful are evil.

Junkyard Tom

wonderfullife wrote: »

Salman Abedi was a stoner, loved drinking, partying and getting up to no good. In short a regular enough fella.

A lot of these nutters seem to be born-again former drunks, addicts etc.

He was no more a Muslim than Christopher Hitchens would be defined as a Christian for saying a prayer on his death-bed.

Hitchens didn't suddenly become a believer in gods/fairies/magic on his deathbed.

gitzy16v

wonderfullife wrote: »

Correct you'd be a fool to refuse to acknowledge your house is on fire.

You'd equally be a fool if the police told you that the perpetrator who set your house on fire is an Italian fella and you then tell everyone that Italians are arsonists.



You vastly underestimate the capacity of the human race to be violent and evil.

Hitler wasn't invading Poland for the love of God.

No Islam, no religion, then just a whole different bunch of problems just as bad. If people aren't killing over religion then they're killing over land or skin colour or something else.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

Salman Abedi was a stoner, loved drinking, partying and getting up to no good. In short a regular enough fella.

You and others keep propagating this narrative that it's the religion of Islam to blame here. That, in your words, "By virtue of his religion he turned on his society".

Here's the reality:

He wasn't a religious person. He was a pot-head who loved getting high and going on the lash.

This trend has been repeated across Europe - young fellas going nowhere in life, not the faintest interest in religion whatsoever, and they suddenly decide to embrace it at the end.

I'm a Catholic in the strictest sense of the word, I was baptised and had my communion and confirmation.

The only time I'm in church is for a funeral. I don't pray.

I'm Catholic in name only.

If I suddenly have enough of being a loser in life and decide to go out tomorrow and kill a load of people based on a passage in Deuteronomy in the Christian Bible, is it Christianty and Catholicism to blame? Is it the fault of the bible for having those passages in them about killing others? I didn't live or practice the faith but hey I used it as an excuse so it must be Christianity's fault right?

It's too simplistic for the rabble to say "ISLAM! Ban it! Throw them in jail! Awful religion!".

The truth is we're seeing Islam being used as a prop by young men who have had enough of this world, enough of being anonymous in this world, enough of failure in getting a job, enough of failure in finding a girlfriend, enough of their sad existence.

Salman Abedi was no more a Muslim than I'm a Catholic.

He was no more a Muslim than Christopher Hitchens would be defined as a Christian for saying a prayer on his death-bed.

For centuries the Christian Bible was used as a prop for people to commit mass-murder. Now it's the turn of the Koran. In the future it'll be some other book.

The more people propagate the idea that Islam is an evil religion full of evil people, the more we will see a rise in far-right terrorism who will see themselves at war with them.

People are always going to be evil, regardless of faith.

Not all the faithful are evil.

What's your point???
According to your link he's turned from a stoner into an Islamic fanatic.

ceadaoin.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Correct you'd be a fool to refuse to acknowledge your house is on fire.

You'd equally be a fool if the police told you that the perpetrator who set your house on fire is an Italian fella and you then tell everyone that Italians are arsonists.



You vastly underestimate the capacity of the human race to be violent and evil.

Hitler wasn't invading Poland for the love of God.

No Islam, no religion, then just a whole different bunch of problems just as bad. If people aren't killing over religion then they're killing over land or skin colour or something else.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

Salman Abedi was a stoner, loved drinking, partying and getting up to no good. In short a regular enough fella.

You and others keep propagating this narrative that it's the religion of Islam to blame here. That, in your words, "By virtue of his religion he turned on his society".

Here's the reality:

He wasn't a religious person. He was a pot-head who loved getting high and going on the lash.

This trend has been repeated across Europe - young fellas going nowhere in life, not the faintest interest in religion whatsoever, and they suddenly decide to embrace it at the end.

I'm a Catholic in the strictest sense of the word, I was baptised and had my communion and confirmation.

The only time I'm in church is for a funeral. I don't pray.

I'm Catholic in name only.

If I suddenly have enough of being a loser in life and decide to go out tomorrow and kill a load of people based on a passage in Deuteronomy in the Christian Bible, is it Christianty and Catholicism to blame? Is it the fault of the bible for having those passages in them about killing others? I didn't live or practice the faith but hey I used it as an excuse so it must be Christianity's fault right?

It's too simplistic for the rabble to say "ISLAM! Ban it! Throw them in jail! Awful religion!".

The truth is we're seeing Islam being used as a prop by young men who have had enough of this world, enough of being anonymous in this world, enough of failure in getting a job, enough of failure in finding a girlfriend, enough of their sad existence.

Salman Abedi was no more a Muslim than I'm a Catholic.

He was no more a Muslim than Christopher Hitchens would be defined as a Christian for saying a prayer on his death-bed.

For centuries the Christian Bible was used as a prop for people to commit mass-murder. Now it's the turn of the Koran. In the future it'll be some other book.

The more people propagate the idea that Islam is an evil religion full of evil people, the more we will see a rise in far-right terrorism who will see themselves at war with them.

People are always going to be evil, regardless of faith.

Not all the faithful are evil.

What are you on about? The very first thing your link says is that he became "increasingly religious" in recent years. More than one person reported their concerns to the police. So clearly he was more than Muslim "in name only". He didn't go from stoner and regular guy to suicide bomber overnight and with no warning - he became more religious and was radicalised at some point. One of the reports was 5 years ago so its not just "at the end" that he decided to embrace Islamic extremism

Wouldn't it be better to focus on the hate preachers and Isis recruiters who appear to be preying on disenfranchised young men, often with violent or criminal histories, in order to further their own ends? Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the religion of islam doesn't have a problem with violent extremists (note- that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists) isn't going to help.

511

wonderfullife wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/salman-abedi-manchester-attacker-isis-terrorist-europe-islamist-suicide-bomber-arena-explosion-a7753541.html

From the article you posted:

The 22-year-old was remembered as a “fun guy” who drank, took drugs and possibly had links with local gangs before appearing increasingly religious as his radicalisation deepened.

Salman Abedi was no more a Muslim than I'm a Catholic.

So you're saying that you're increasingly leaning towards radical Catholicism? Between this and your comment about Lauren Southern only being a "notch down from Adolf Hitler", you come out with some hilariously stupid statements when apologizing for Islam.

Hank Scorpio

Bordering on delusional at this stage.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to get anyone from the so-called mainstream/centre to even countenance that the West, or whoever else, has any responsibility whatsoever for the unmitigated mess in the Middle East despite the invasions, wars, proxy wars, support/cover weapons sales to the Saudis and so on.

Firstly, I am not denying that there may be some truth to this but in all honesty its brought up more as a defence of these actions, to hide uncomfortable truths.

Sweden hasn't done anything against the middle east, yet they have experienced Islamic inspired terrorist attacks.

Germany hasn't done anything against the middle east, yet they have experienced Islamic inspired terrorist attacks.

Belgium hasn't done anything against the middle east, yet there have experienced Islamic inspired terrorist attacks.

France was wholly against the Iraq war, yet have suffered numerous attacks.

Ireland, as neutral as it comes, last month arrested and charged a number of people who were engaging in Islamic inspired terrorist activities. What has Ireland done to Muslims or the Middle East?

It comes to the stage where the Jihadists will use any justification they can find, valid or not.

Its like being a woman in an abusive relationship. She spills tea on her partner and gets a clobbering for it. Well, she thinks, 'If I didn't spill the tea I wouldn't have gotten a smack, next time ill be careful'.
She burns the toast a week later, another smack. Well it was really her fault as she shouldn't have burnt the toast.
The week after that, she shrinks her partners favourite t-shirt in the wash. Another smack. Ah, but really it was her fault, she should have done a cold wash. Next time she will be more careful.......

It comes to a stage where you have to realise her partner is just a violent douchebag which will lash out at any little whim. Islamists don't really care about other nations foreign policy. They just want to **** all over everyone else and will use any excuse. I am just disappointed that others, in the west, use the same logic to defend the indefensible.

The_Kew_Tour

The point is they're no point, that is the point

old_aussie

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

The point is they're no point, that is the point

Point Taken!

wonderfullife

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

1. A lot of these nutters seem to be born-again former drunks, addicts etc.

2. Hitchens didn't suddenly become a believer in gods/fairies/magic on his deathbed.

1. Exactly the point.

Muslims are not supposed to drink, get stoned, sniff coke, gamble etc.

A scary majority of the guys committing these big atrocities in Europe live a life totally at odds with Islam. In fact, you could describe their lives as more in keeping with Christian or Atheist behaviour.

Yet when they do decide to blow themselves up or drive their truck through a crowd of people, it's "Islam" is to blame, when they weren't practicing that religion most of their lives and just decided to embrace a twisted interpretation at/near the end.

2. As for Hitchens - I know he didn't. It's why I said "would" not "was"

gitzy16v wrote: »

What's your point???
According to your link he's turned from a stoner into an Islamic fanatic.

Point as above.

If these attacks in Europe were being committed by lads who were devout Muslims their entire life, then I would say there is a serious and endemic problem within the entire religion.

There would also be millions more terrorists if that was the case.

The fact that there isn't and the fact most of these European terrorists actually live anti-Muslim lifestyles until a very late stage suggests to me that there isn't an endemic fault in the religion itself.

To repeat, I think all religions are cults based on fairytales.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bordering on delusional at this stage.

That's beyond rich coming from you in your mindless incessant defence of Trump on this site. Trump says up is down and black is white and you leap to his defence daily.

You constantly rail against multi-culturalism so I'm presuming you believe in a thing called white culture.

"White culture" if there is such a thing, especially in Ireland, is basically drinking, smoking, partying, sports. Exactly the lifestyle Lunatic Abedi led too.

I'm under no illusions that Radical Islamic Terrorism is a threat. I've constantly tried to put the threat into perspective - attacks by these Radicals in Europe for the past 16 years since 9/11 have been few and far between.

If we constantly address the threat in hyperbolic terms, it makes things worse not better. If we seek to demonise an entire religion based on the actions of the few, it makes things worse. If we refuse to condemn right-wing terror, it makes things worse.

This evil cnut killed 22 people in cold blood. If we start deporting and interning innocent people because of his actions, then we don't have a society worth protecting.

LordSutch

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I'm against violence but not a 100% pacifist. But there is a fundamental principle, I believe people have the right to defend their country against invaders who are destroying & occupying it, people have the right to resist that. And people who don't support this very simple, elementary and uncomplicated question, to me are a moral card.

Hmm, something about terrorism, can't think what I wanted to post now, me old memory must be playing up.

Anyway, I hope Theresa May gives Trump an earful regarding the leaked pictures! You would wonder how & why that happened, specially in light of the fact that the Americans were told not to release the sensitive leaked pics/info.

Hank Scorpio

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's beyond rich coming from you in your mindless incessant defence of Trump on this site. Trump says up is down and black is white and you leap to his defence daily.

You constantly rail against multi-culturalism so I'm presuming you believe in a thing called white culture.

"White culture" if there is such a thing, especially in Ireland, is basically drinking, smoking, partying, sports. Exactly the lifestyle Lunatic Abedi led too.

I'm under no illusions that Radical Islamic Terrorism is a threat. I've constantly tried to put the threat into perspective - attacks by these Radicals in Europe for the past 16 years since 9/11 have been few and far between.

If we constantly address the threat in hyperbolic terms, it makes things worse not better. If we seek to demonise an entire religion based on the actions of the few, it makes things worse. If we refuse to condemn right-wing terror, it makes things worse.

This evil cnut killed 22 people in cold blood. If we start deporting and interning innocent people because of his actions, then we don't have a society worth protecting.

What has Trump got to do with your stance on this issue? Trump is one of the few Politicians who speaks out about this issue that's plaguing Europe. I've called him out plenty on his performance overall but that's for another thread.

You write these long posts that I interpret as thinly veiled defences to maintain the moral high ground then end them with phrases like "evil cnut" as a defence to fall back upon when questioned on your forgiving tone. It reminds me of the young turks denial when the news broke refusing to mention Islam and speculated it was the IRA when all 3 of them in the room knew what it was, sorry to be blunt but I see through that crap. The great dilemma for people like them and those of similar thinking is this problem and I bet it's eating them alive and they're scrambling for excuses, just like you are. You said in previous posts it's due to drug use or some shíte, his father and brothers have been arrested. There's now 8 in custody related to the incident.

Merkel says multiculturalism is a myth and it creates parallel societies, is she a white supremacist? Buzzwords like white culture aren't working anymore.